LIBRARY  OF  PRINCETON 


SEP  -3  2011 

THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


BX7323.4  . K4  1923 
Kershner,  Frederick  D. 

( Frederick  Doyle ) , 
1875-1953 . 

Christian  union  overture 
an 

interpretation  of  the 
declaration  and 


U-  rU  -  \ 


W 


THE  CHRISTIAN  UNION  OVERTURE 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/christianunionovOOkers 


THE 

CHRISTIAN  UNION  OVERTURE 


An  Interpretation  of 

THE  DECLARATION  AND  ADDRESS 
OF  THOMAS  CAMPBELL 


BY 

FREDERICK  D.  KERSHNER 

PROFESSOR  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE 
DRAKE  UNIVERSITY 


•  OF  PRINCETON 


<  C  p 

A*  t-  ( 


-  3  2011 


:  '^'-^ogiCAL  SEMINARY 


St.  Louis,  Mo. 
The  Bethany  Press 


Copyright, 

The  Bethany  Press 
1923 


PREFACE 


THE  Declaration  ancl  Address  of  Thomas  Camp¬ 
bell  has  always  possessed  distinct  historic  interest. 
It  has  been  republished  a  number  of  times  but  has  never 
been  revised  or  put  in  such  a  form  as  to  make  it  easy 
reading  for  a  twentieth  century  student.  In  view  of  the 
renewed  emphasis  upon  Christian  union  which  has  be¬ 
come  so  characteristic  of  present  day  religious  life,  it 
has  seemed  worth  while  to  present  the  Declaration  to 
the  public  in  a  form  which  we  trust  will  prove  more 
appealing  than  has  been  true  of  the  older  editions.  The 
text  of  the  immortal  document  is  given  verbatim  in  the 
present  volume,  the  only  changes  being  a  revision  of 
the  paragraphing  and  the  addition  of  topical  headings 
where  they  appeared  to  be  necessary  in  order  to  bring 
out  the  full  meaning  of  the  author. 

Such  commentary  as  this  book  contains  has  been  de¬ 
signed  to  make  its  original  meaning  clear  and  also  to 
interpret  that  meaning  in  the  light  of  the  development 
of  the  last  hundred  years.  If  Thomas  Campbell  could 
come  back  to  earth  at  the  present  time,  he  would  no 
doubt  wish  to  make  some  changes  in  the  Declaration 
and  Address  in  order  to  adapt  it  to  present  day  needs. 
The  astonishing  thing  about  the  book  is  not  that  so  much 
of  it  has  become  obsolete  but  that  there  is  so  little  which 
is  not  vital  and  significant  for  our  own  day.  There  are 
few  books  a  century  old  which  need  less  revision  than 
the  Declaration  and  Address  in  order  to  make  them  of 
distinct  value  and  helpfulness  to  men  and  women  of  the 
present  age. 

Frederick  D.  Kershner. 

Drake  University 
April  25,  1923.  ‘ 


5 


CONTENTS 

Part  I — Introduction 


Preface . 5 

I.  How  the  Declaration  Came  to  Be  Written  .  .  13 

II.  Fundamental  Principles . 25 

III.  General  Analysis . 30 

IV.  The  Declaration  and  Address — Introductory 

Statement . 32 

1.  Assertion  of  the  Right  of  Private  Judgment. 

2.  Authority  of  the  Scriptures. 

3.  The  Curse  of  Religious  Schism. 

4.  The  Onlv  Way  to  Union. 

Y.  Resolutions . 33 

1.  The  Christian  Association. 

2.  The  Association’s  Finances. 

3.  Missionary  Work  of  the  Association. 

4.  The  Association  not  a  Church. 

5.  Immediate  Scope  of  the  Work  of  the  Association. 

6.  Executive  Committee  of  the  Association. 

7.  Time  of  Meeting. 

S.  Program  of  the  Meetings. 

9.  Appeal  for  Financial  Support. 

VI.  Comment  Upon  the  Declaration . 35 


Part  II — The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 

I.  Text  of  the  Declaration . 51 

1.  Love  and  Unity — The  Divine  Plan. 

2.  Disastrous  Effects  of  Division. 

3.  Special  Responsibility  of  the  Church  in  America. 

4.  Grounds  for  Hope  of  Union. 

II.  Comment  Upon  the  Text 


56 


8 


Contents 


III.  Text  of  the  Declaration . 59 

1.  Christian  Union  the  Common  Cause  for  All  Chris¬ 

tians. 

2.  The  New  Testament  Church  the  Basis  of  Union. 

3.  Christians  Separated  by  Non-Essentials. 

4.  Christian  Union  at  its  Lowest  Terms. 

5.  Christian  Union  Seasonable  and  Timely. 

IV.  Comment  Upon  the  Declaration  ....  62 

V.  Text  of  the  Declaration . 70 

1.  Special  Appeal  to  the  Ministry  in  Behalf  of  Union. 

2.  If  Unity  Hereafter,  Why  not  Here? 

3.  The  Duty  of  Association. 

4.  Argument  from  Fulfilled  Prophecy. 

5.  The  Call  to  Freedom  as  Well  as  Unity. 

6.  The  Proposed  Platform  for  Unity. 

7.  Not  a  New  Creed. 

VI.  Comment  Upon  the  Above . 73 

VII.  Introduction  to  Thomas  Campbell’s  Platform 

for  Union . 76 

VIII.  The  Platform  for  Unity . 81 

1.  Proposition  1 — The  Church  Defined 
Comment 

2.  Proposition  2 — The  Province  of  the  Local  Congrega¬ 

tion. 

Comment 

3.  Proposition  3 — The  Authority  of  the  Scriptures. 
Comment 

4.  Proposition  4 — Proper  Place  of  the  New  and  the  Old 

Testament. 

Comment 

5.  Proposition  5 — The  New  Testament  Ordinances. 
Comment 

6.  Proposition  6 — The  Proper  Place  of  Theology. 
Comment 

7.  Proposition  7 — The  Futility  of  Human  Creeds. 
Comment 

8.  Proposition  8 — Terms  of  Admission  to  the  Church. 
Comment 

9.  Proposition  9 — The  Brotherhood  of  the  Church. 
Comment 

10.  Proposition  10 — The  Sin  of  Church  Divisions. 
Comment 


Contents 


9 


11.  Proposition  11 — Causes  of  Divisions. 

Comment 

12.  Proposition  12 — Terms  of  Church  Membership. 
Comment 

13.  Proposition  13 — The  Place  of  Expediency. 

Comment 

IX.  Text  of  the  Declaration — Method  and  Purpose  of 

the  Platform . 96 

1.  The  Multitude  no  Authority. 

2.  The  Motto  of  the  Restoration. 

3.  Exhortation  to  Action. 

4.  The  Associational  Plan. 

X.  Comment  Upon  the  Above . 99 

XI.  Text  of  the  Declaration . 105 

1.  Earnest  Appeal  to  the  Clergy. 

2.  No  Personal  Superiority  Claimed. 

3.  The  Only  Hopeful  Platform  for  Unity. 

4.  Closed  Communion  Unbrotherly. 

5.  The  Better  Day  to  Be. 

XII.  Comment  Upon  the  Above . 108 


Part  HI — The  Appendix 

I.  Text  of  the  Appendix . 113 

1.  Reasons  for  Adding  the  Appendix. 

2.  No  Intention  of  Proselvting. 

3.  Attitude  on  Creeds. 

4.  Not  a  New  Party. 

5.  The  Only  Test  of  Fellowship — A  Thus  Saith  the  Lord. 

6.  The  Declaration  not  a  Rock  of  Offense. 

7.  Suppose  the  New  Testament  Wrong? 

8.  Union  by  Forbearance. 

9.  Advantage  of  Clearing  Away  Dead  Material. 

10.  The  Charge  of  Latitudinarianism. 

11.  Three  Great  Evils. 

12.  Consequences  of  Excommunication. 

13.  True  Basis  of  Union. 

14.  Different  Interpretations  of  Scriptures. 

15.  Departure  from  Bible,  Cause  of  Schism. 

16.  Not  Absolute  Uniformity. 

17.  Plan  Better  Than  Past  Programs. 


10 


Contents 


IS.  Arguments  against  Creeds. 

19.  Limitations  of  Unity. 

20.  Proper  Use  of  Creeds  and  Catechisms. 

21.  Superiority  of  the  Bible. 

22.  A  Further  Objection. 

23.  Further  Defense  Against  Latitudinarianism. 

24.  Reasons  for  Writing  the  Appendix. 

25.  Adequacy  of  the  Bible. 

26.  Ethical  Definition  of  a  Christian. 

27.  The  New  Testament  the  Rule. 

23.  The  Opposite  of  Latitudinarian. 

29.  Opposition  to  Controversy. 

30.  Final  Illustration. 

II.  Comment  Upon  the  Appendix  .  .  .  . 

1.  No  Intention  of  Proselyting. 

2.  Attitude  Toward  Creeds  and  Confessions. 

3.  Breadth  of  Thomas  Campbell’s  Position. 

4.  The  Sin  of  Church  Arrogance. 

5.  Ilow  to  Interpret  the  Scriptures. 

6.  Superiority  of  the  Bible  as  a  Standard. 

7.  Final  Conclusions. 


.  145 


PART  I 

INTRODUCTION 


PART  I— INTRODUCTION 


I.  HOW  THE  DECLARATION  CAME  TO 

BE  WRITTEN 

THERE  are  certain  outstanding  political  documents 
which  have  affected  the  whole  course  of  human 
history.  Such,  for  example,  are  the  “Code  of  Ham¬ 
murabi,”  the  “Laws  of  Moses,”  the  English  “Magna 
Charta,”  and  the  “Declaration  of  Independence”  of 
the  thirteen  American  colonies.  In  the  field  of  reli¬ 
gion,  the  same  situation  obtains.  There  are  a  few  epoch- 
making  productions  which  have  been  responsible  for 
the  specific  trend  which  church  thought  and  activity 
have  taken  through  the  ages.  It  is  characteristic  of 
these  works  that,  while  they  become  antiquated  in  cer¬ 
tain  particulars,  they  never  really  lose  their  power  to 
influence  and  fashion  the  lives  of  those  who  read  them. 
The  “Confessions  of  St.  Augustine,”  for  example,  while 
absurdly  out  of  date  so  far  as  science  and  philosophy 
are  concerned,  possesses  a  living  and  heart-searching 
appeal  which  will  retain  its  freshness  and  power  to  all 
succeeding  generations.  The  same  things  are  true  of  a 
mediaeval  document  like  “The  Imitation  of  Christ” 
or  the  probably  apocryphal  “Little  Flowers  of  St. 
Francis.”  These  books  have  an  eternal  quality  about 
them  which  age  cannot  wither  nor  custom  stale.  The 
fact  that  there  are  certain  extraneous  inaccuracies  pres¬ 
ent  in  all  of  them  does  not  in  the  least  affect  their 
abiding  value.  There  must  be  some  alloy  in  almost 
all  of  the  precious  metals  which  the  miner  extracts  from 
the  earth.  So  it  is,  even  with  the  greatest  and  most 
imperishable  monuments,  both  of  literature  and  of  art. 

The  Declaration  and  Address  of  Thomas  Campbell 
can  fairly  lay  claim  to  being  regarded  as  one  of  the 

13 


14 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


immortal  documents  of  religious  history.  This  is  true, 
not  only  because  of  its  influence  upon  the  history  of 
the  Disciples  of  Christ  but  also  because  of  its  intrinsic 
merit.  It  touches  upon  the  most  important  problems 
of  the  modern  church,  and  until  these  problems  are  set¬ 
tled  it  will  always  possess  a  direct  and  searching  ap¬ 
peal.  The  evils  which  the  author  deprecated  are  still 
with  us  and  whatever  view  we  may  take  of  the  solu- 
tion  which  he  suggests,  no  one  can  dispute  the  earnest¬ 
ness  and  acuteness  of  his  appeal.  In  order  to  under¬ 
stand  and  appreciate  what  he  has  written,  it  is  neces¬ 
sary  that  we  should  know  something  of  the  man  him¬ 
self  and  of  the  intellectual  and  spiritual  background  of 
the  period  in  which  he  lived. 

In  the  Memoirs  of  Elder  Thomas  Campbell,  written 
by  his  son  Alexander,  we  find  the  statement  that  Thomas 
Campbell  was  descended  from  the  Campbells  of  Argyle, 
Scotland.  The  duke  of  Argyle,  so  Alexander  tells  us, 
Sir  Archibald  Campbell,  was  the  head  of  the  clan.  At 
one  time,  it  is  said,  he  commanded  a  regiment  of  men 
every  one  of  which  was  named  Campbell. 

Archibald  Campbell,  the  father  of  Thomas,  wras  the 
son  of  James  Campbell  who  was  born  in  the  county  of 
Down,  near  Dverlake  Wood,  Ulster,  Ireland.  The 
Campbells  were  among  the  Scotch  settlers  who  colo¬ 
nized  Ulster  and  whose  descendants  have  helped  to 
make  the  Irish  problem  increasingly  difficult  because 
of  their  religious  differences  with  their  southern  neigh¬ 
bors.  James  Campbell,  according  to  the  record,  lived 
to  be  one  hunred  and  five  years  of  age.  There  is  noth¬ 
ing  of  especial  significance  recorded  concerning  his  life. 
He  appears  to  have  been  a  member  of  the  Roman  Cath¬ 
olic  church,  in  which  faith  he  brought  up  his  son  Archi¬ 
bald.  The  latter  entered  the  British  army  while  merely 
a  boy  and  served  under  General  Wolfe  in  his  campaigns 
in  the  West  Indies  and  in  Canada.  He  was  present  at 
the  battle  of  Quebec  and  there  was  a  tradition  preserved 
in  the  Campbell  family  to  the  effect  that  General  Wolfe, 


Introduction 


15 


after  his  victory  over  Montcalm,  died  in  the  arms  of 
Archibald  Campbell.  After  the  fall  of  Quebec,  young 
Campbell  came  back  to  Ireland  and  spent  the  remainder 
of  his  life  in  his  native  land.  At  some  time  after  his 
return,  he  gave  up  the  Roman  Catholic  faith  and  became 
a  strict  member  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  which 
communion  he  died  at  the  age  of  eighty-eight.  He  had 
four  sons,  Thomas,  James,  Archibald  and  Enos.  The 
last  named  died  in  1804,  three  years  before  his  father. 
The  other  three  sons  were  all  members  of  the  Secession 
or  Antiburgher  Presbyterian  Church,  Archibald  having 
been  a  ruling  elder  of  this  church  for  many  years  in 
his  home  town  of  Newry.  Enos  Campbell,  before  his 
death,  held  the  position  of  head  master  of  one  of  the 
most  popular  academies  in  the  same  town. 

Thomas  Campbell  emigrated  to  the  United  States  in 
1807,  coming  under  the  special  direction  of  the  General 
Associate  Synod  of  the  Antiburgher  Presbyterian 
Church.  When  he  arrived  in  Philadelphia,  he  found  the 
synod  of  his  church  in  session  and  upon  the  presenta¬ 
tion  of  his  testimonials,  he  was  cordially  received  and 
was  recommended  to  the  Presbvterv  of  Chartiers  in 
western  Pennsylvania.  He  journeyed  to  his  new  field 
by  the  slow  and  toilsome  method  of  transportation  then 
in  vogue  and  it  was  some  weeks  before  he  reached  his 
destination.  As  soon  as  he  came  upon  the  ground,  he 
presented  his  credentials  to  the  presbytery,  was  received 
into  its  communion,  and  at  once  had  a  field  of  labor 
assigned  to  him.  It  should  be  said  that  he  came  to  his 
work  with  a  degree  of  religious  breadth  which  was  en¬ 
tirely  in  advance  of  his  local  surroundings.  Before  he 
left  Scotland,  he  had  been  prominent  in  a  movement 
which  looked  toward  the  union  of  the  Burghers  and 
the  Antiburehers  at  the  Scotch  General  Assemblv  in 

t/ 

Glasgow.  He  made  a  notable  argument  in  favor  of 
union,  but  his  views  did  not  prevail  with  the  Assembly. 
Alexander  Campbell,  in  commenting  upon  his  part  in 
the  discussion,  tells  the  following  incident: 


16 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


Some  four  years  after  this  discussion,  when  a  student  in  the 
University  of  Glasgow,  while  returning  home  from  church  one  day, 
I  was  interrogated  by  a  gentleman  accompanying  me  as  to  my 
parentage.  On  naming  my  father,  he  said:  “I  listened  to  your 
father  in  our  General  Assembly  in  this  city,  pleading  for  a  union 
between  the  Burghers  and  the  Antiburghers.  But,  sir,  while,  in 
my  opinion,  he  clearly  out-argued  them,  they  out-voted  him.  ’ 7 

There  may  have  been  something  in  the  ancestry  of 
Thomas  Campbell  which  predisposed  him  toward  religions 
tolerance.  His  grandfather  had  lived  and  died  a  Roman 
Catholic.  His  father,  throughout  the  years  when 
Thomas  could  remember  him,  had  been  a  rigid  Episco¬ 
palian.  He  and  his  brothers  were  all  Presbyterians  of 
the  straightest  sect.  Such  an  inheritance  was  calculated 
to  beget  tolerance  and  few  men  in  the  history  of  the 
church  have  maintained  a  more  tolerant  attitude  than 
Thomas  Campbell.  The  breadth  of  his  religious  sym¬ 
pathy  extended  far  beyond  the  ranks  of  any  particular 
communion  and  embraced  “all  who  love  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  in  sincerity.”  Tolerant  and  sympathetic  as  he 
was,  there  was  no  lack  of  loyalty  or  fervor  about  his 
religion.  Speaking  out  of  a  personal  knowledge  of  his 
work  as  a  pastor  in  the  County  of  Armagh,  Ireland,  his 
son  and  biographer  says: 

We  only  express  a  prevailing  public  opinion,  when  we  say  that 
he  was  the  most  earnest,  indefatigable,  and  devoted  minister  in 
the  presbytery  and  synod  to  which  he  belonged.  In  preaching, 
teaching,  and  in  visiting  his  charge,  inculcating  personal  and  family 
religion,  he  had  certainly  no  superior;  and,  so  far  as  we  could 
ascertain  no  equal.  His  family  training  and  discipline  were  pe¬ 
culiarly  didactic,  biblical,  and  strict.  The  Bible,  with  Brown’s 
Catechism,  was,  during  the  minority  of  his  family,  a  daily  study 
and  a  daily  recitation.  He  also  instituted  these  customs  in  all  the 
families  of  his  congregation.  His  congregation  at  Ahorey,  in  the 
county  of  Aramagh,  was  therefore  regarded  as  the  best  educated 
community  in  the  presbytery  of  Market  Hill,  to  which  he  belonged. 
If  not  formally  and  professedly  a  reformer  in  this  department  in 
his  own  synod,  he  was  virtually  so.  He  also  strongly  remonstrated 
against  the  schisms  in  that  large  denomination  called  Presbyterians, 
under  their  respective  armorials — Covenanters  or  Cameronians, 
Burghers  and  Antiburghers  or  Seceders. 

By  temperament,  education  and  inheritance,  Thomas 
Campbell  was  predisposed  to  religious  tolerance.  He 


Introduction 


17 


had  manifested  a  disposition  toward  Christian  unity, 
during  his  nine  years’  pastorate  in  Ireland,  far  beyond 
the  prevailng  viewpoint  of  the  age.  At  the  Synod  in 
Belfast,  three  years  before  he  moved  to  America  and 
again  a  year  later,  at  the  joint  meeting  in  Lurgan,  he 
had  led  the  movement  for  uniting  the  two  bodies  of  the 
Seceders.  In  1806,  a  year  before  he  came  to  America, 
he  pleaded  the  same  cause  before  the  General  Synod 
in  Glasgow.  It  is  worth  noting  in  this  connection  that 
while  the  cause  which  he  advocated  was  defeated  in  all 
of  these  gatherings,  only  fourteen  years  later,  in  1820, 
it  was  triumphant.  By  this  time,  however,  Thomas 
Campbell  had  advanced  in  his  vision  of  union  far  be¬ 
yond  the  circle  of  his  own  denomination,  and  was  ad¬ 
vocating  with  all  the  enthusiasm  at  his  command  the 
larger  unity  of  the  entire  church  of  God. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  immediate  circum¬ 
stance  which  sent  Thomas  Campbell  to  the  new  world 
was  the  desire  to  recuperate  physically  after  his  stren¬ 
uous  labors  in  his  home  field.  His  health  was  very 
delicate  at  this  time  and  his  physicians  urged  him  to 
take  a  sea  voyage  as  the  most  promising,  if  not,  as  his 
son  puts  it,  “the  only  restorative  of  his  enervated  sys¬ 
tem.”  When  he  came  to  the  United  States,  it  was  with 
the  expectation  of  returning  to  Ireland  as  soon  as  his 
health  would  permit.  He  left  his  wife  and  family  in 
the  homeland  to  carry  on  his  work.  As  the  event 
proved,  they  came  to  him  but  he  did  not  go  back  to 
them.  One  cannot  avoid  speculating  upon  the  conse¬ 
quences  of  such  a  return  had  the  original  schedule  been 
carried  out.  Doubtless  the  Campbells  would  have  been 
influential  in  their  homeland,  but  one  cannot  help  feel¬ 
ing  that  it  required  the  breadth  and  vigor  of  the  new 
national  life  which  was  then  awakening  in  America  in 
order  to  fully  develop  their  later  plea.  The  Disciples 
of  Christ  are  distinctly  American  in  their  group  out¬ 
look  and  attitude  and  they  remain  today  the  most 
numerous  and  influential  religious  body  which  had  its 
inception  in  America. 


18 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


When  Thomas  Campbell  began  his  work  in  western 
Pennsylvania,  he  was  under  the  direction  of  the  presby¬ 
tery  of  Chartiers.  From  the  first,  he  met  with  opposi¬ 
tion.  Doubtless  most  of  this  arose  from  his  divergent 
views,  especially  in  the  matter  of  Christian  tolerance, 
but  there  is  a  tradition  to  the  effect  that  envious  feel¬ 
ings,  on  the  part  of  his  brother  ministers,  were  partially 
responsible  for  the  opposition  to  his  work.  A  personal 
letter  of  Elder  James  Foster,  who  crossed  the  Atlantic 
almost  simultaneously  with  Thomas  Campbell,  contains 
the  following  interesting  paragraph  concerning  the 
early  work  of  Mr.  Campbell: 

He  commenced  his  labors  in  this  country  under  the  direction 
of  the  Chartiers  presbytery.  They  viewed  him  with  a  jealous  eye, 
being  superior  to  them  both  as  a  scholar  and  a  preacher.  In  the 
course  of  some  time,  they  brought  a  charge  against  him  before 
the  presbytery  for  not  preaching  the  gospel.  He  defended  himself 
against  this  charge  but  they  wrould  not  acquit  him.  He  appealed 
to  the  Synod  and  they  acquitted  him  from  the  charge. 

The  immediate  cause  of  liis  citation  before  the  pres¬ 
bytery  was  his  attitude  toward  the  communion  service 
while  conducting  his  missionary  work.  He  invited  all 
members  of  the  Presbyterian  family  to  partake  of  the 
Lord’s  Supper  and  thus  aroused  the  opposition  of  his  co¬ 
worker,  a  young  minister  named  Mr.  Wilson.  Wilson 
did  not  oppose  the  action  of  his  companion  when  it  took 
place,  but  having  talked  the  matter  over  with  Mr.  Camp¬ 
bell  afterward,  he  felt  that  his  duty  compelled  him 
to  bring  the  matter  before  the  presbytery.  He  did  this 
in  the  usual  form  of  “libel,”  bringing  sundry,  formal 
and  specified  charges,  the  most  important  of  which  al¬ 
leged  that  Mr.  Campbell  had  not  inculcated  strict  ad¬ 
herence  to  the  church  standards  and  had  even  expressed 
his  disapproval  of  certain  things  which  those  standards 
contained.  The  upshot  of  the  matter  was  that  the 
presbytery  held  a  church  trial,  resulting  in  the  con¬ 
demnation  of  the  accused  who  was  formallv  censured 

«/ 

by  the  organization.  As  was  his  privilege  under  the 
laws  of  the  church,  Mr.  Campbell  appealed  from  the 


Introduction 


19 


decision  of  the  presbytery  to  the  Associate  Synod  of 
North  America.  The  pronouncement  of  the  Synod  in 
the  matter  is  somewhat  interesting  because  of  the  mo¬ 
mentous  results  which  flowed  from  it.  Alexander 
Campbell  quotes  the  exact  language  of  the  decision  to 
the  following  effect: 

Upon  an  examination  of  the  reasons  of  Protest,  and  the  pres¬ 
bytery’s  answer,  it  was  the  judgment  of  the  Synod  that  there  were 
such  informalities  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Presbytery  in  the  trial 
of  said  case  as  to  afford  sufficient  reason  to  the  Synod  to  set  aside 
their  judgment  and  decision,  and  to  release  the  protestor  from  the 
censure  inflicted  by  the  Presbytery;  which  they  accordingly  did. 

Thomas  Campbell  was  therefore  technically  acquitted 
upon  his  appeal  to  the  higher  court  of  his  church.  Had 
the  matter  remained  there,  the  later  history  might  have 
been  written  differently.  Unfortunately,  however,  the 
subject  was  further  referred  to  a  committee  who 
brought  in  the  following  report: 

Upon  the  whole,  the  committee  is  of  the  opinion  that  Mr.  Camp¬ 
bell 's  answers  to  the  two  first  articles  of  charge  are  so  evasive  and 
unsatisfactory,  and  highly  equivocal  upon  great  and  important 
articles  of  revealed  religion,  as  to  give  ground  to  conclude,  that 
he  has  expressed  sentiments  very  different  upon  these  articles,  and 
from  sentiments  held  and  professed  by  this  church,  and  are  suffi¬ 
cient  ground  to  infer  censure. 

A  more  insinuating  and,  in  the  best  sense  of  the  word, 
insulting  decision  than  is  contained  in  the  report  of  this 
committee  is  hardly  to  be  found  in  the  pages  of  religious 
history.  Had  the  members  of  the  committee  condemned 
the  defendant  because  of  heresy'  alone,  the  situation  would 
have  been  different.  Their  language,  however,  involves 
not  only  an  accusation  of  heresy  but  also  one  of  hypoc¬ 
risy  and  equivocation  “upon  great  and  important  ar¬ 
ticles  of  revealed  religion.”  From  what  they  are  pleased 
to  style  his  “evasive”  attitude,  they  conclude  that  at 
some  time  he  must  have  expressed  sentiments  “very 
different  upon  these  articles”  and,  having  expressed 
such  sentiments,  he  deserved  censure.  In  commenting 
upon  the  situation  at  this  point,  Alexander  Campbell 


20 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


says:  “At  that  time,  and  long  after,  Father  Campbell 
was  as  sound  a  Calvinist  as  any  man  I  then  knew  in 
Scotland  or  Ireland ;  as  strong  in  that  system  as  the 
most  orthodox  in  the  Presbyterian  church.”  It  was 
bad  enough,  under  the  circumstances,  to  be  unjustly 
accused  of  heretical  views  but  it  was  infinitely  worse 
to  be  accused  of  hypocrisy.  One  can  readily  see  that 
a  high-spirited  gentleman,  like  Thomas  Campbell,  could 
hardly  accept  such  a  decision  and  remain  true  to  his 
own  conceptions  of  personal  independence  and  integ¬ 
rity.  There  is  some  question  as  to  whether  he  did  ac¬ 
cept  it.  The  general  opinion  has  been  that  he  acquiesced 
in  the  decision  in  the  interest  of  Christian  charity  and 
forbearance.  Robert  Richardson  in  his  “Memoirs  of 
Alexander  Campbell”  says: 

Mr.  Campbell  fondly  hoped  that  the  amicable  relations  formerly 
existing  between  him  and  the  Presbytery  of  Chartiers  would  be 
restored,  and  that  he  would  be  permitted  to  prosecute  his  labors 
in  peace.  In  this,  however,  he  soon  found  himself  mistaken,  and 
discovered  with  much  regret  that  the  hostility  of  his  opponents 
had  been  only  intensified  by  the  issue  of  the  trial  and  was  more 
undisguised  than  ever.  Misrepresentation  and  calumny  were  em¬ 
ployed  to  detract  from  his  influence;  a  constant  watch  was  placed 
over  his  proceedings,  and  he  discovered  that  even  spies  were  em¬ 
ployed  to  attend  his  meetings  and  take  notes  of  his  discourses,  in 
order,  if  possible,  to  obtain  fresh  grounds  of  accusation  against 
him.  .  .  .  He  came,  therefore,  to  the  conclusion  finally  that  it 

was  his  duty  to  separate  himself  from  all  connection  with  a  people 
who  seemed  utterly  unwilling  to  tolerate  any  overture  for  healing 
the  religious  dissensions  of  the  time,  and  who  seemed  to  regard 
their  own  particular  “Testimony’ ’  as  practically  a  more  im¬ 
portant  rule  of  action  than  the  Bible.  He  accordingly  presented  to 
the  Synod  a  formal  renunciation  of  its  authority  announcing  that 
he  abandoned  all  ministerial  connection  with  it  and  would  hold 
himself  thenceforth  utterly  unaffected  by  its  decisions. 

It  would  appear  from  the  above  statement  that 
Thomas  Campbell  accepted  the  decision  of  the  Synod  in 
good  faith  notwithstanding  its  insinuations  of  hypocrisy 
and  continued  his  work  with  the  Presbytery  of  Char- 
tiers  until  the  further  actions  of  his  opponents  in  the 
church  made  it  impossible  for  him  to  remain  in  the 
Presbyterian  communion. 


Introduction 


21 


Alexander  Campbell  in  his  memoirs  of  his  father  gives 

in  detail  the  communication  which  Thomas  sent  to  the 

Svnod  at  the  time  when  he  withdrew  from  the  church. 
%/ 

The  document  is  too  long  to  quote  here  but  it  is  inter¬ 
esting  to  note  that  there  is  nothing  said  in  it  concerning 
the  later  derelictions  which  Dr.  Richardson  gives  as 
the  final  basis  of  withdrawal.  The  argument  is  based 
solely  upon  the  lack  of  fairness,  on  the  part  of  the 
Svnod,  in  taking  its  official  action.  The  following  direct 
citations  from  the  communication  in  question  are  of 
immediate  interest : 

It  is  with  sincere  reluctance,  and,  at  the  same  time,  with  all 
due  respect  and  esteem  for  the  brethren  of  this  reverend  Synod 
who  have  presided  in  the  trial  of  my  case,  that  I  find  myself  in 
duty  bound  to  refuse  submission  to  their  decision  as  unjust  and 
partial,  and  also  finally  to  decline  the  authority,  wdiile  they  con¬ 
tinue  thus  to  overlook  the  grievous  and  flagrant  m al- administration 
of  the  Presbytery  of  Chartiers.  And  I  hereby  do  decline  all  min¬ 
isterial  connection  with,  or  subjection  to,  the  Associate  Synod  of 
North  America,  on  account  of  the  aforesaid  corruptions  and  griev¬ 
ances;  and  do  henceforth  hold  myself  altogether  unaffected  by 
their  decisions.  And,  that  I  may  be  properly  understood,  I  will 
distinctly  state  that,  while  especial  reference  is  had  to  the  corrup¬ 
tions  of  the  Presbytery  of  Chartiers,  which  constitute  only  a  part 
of  this  Synod,  the  corruptions  of  that  Presbytery  now  become  also 
the  corruptions  of  the  whole  Synod;  because  when  laid  open  to 
this  Synod,  and  protested  against,  the  Synod  pass  them  over  with¬ 
out  due  inquiry,  and  without  animadversion. 

Thomas  Campbell. 

It  is  characteristic  of  the  integrity  of  Thomas  Camp¬ 
bell  that  he  immediately  refunded  to  the  treasurer  of 
the  Svnod  the  sum  of  money  which  had  been  advanced 
to  him  for  his  work  as  a  missionary.  He  does  not  ap¬ 
pear  to  have  had  any  definite  means  of  support  at  this 
time  and  his  action  in  cutting  off  all  connection  with  his 
base  of  supplies,  while  upon  a  mission  field,  indicates  his 
courage  and  devotion  to  principle.  He  had  the  Scotch 
loyalty  to  duty,  regardless  of  consequences  in  his  make¬ 
up  and  he  had  no  hesitation  about  choosing  his  pathway 
when  duty  blazed  the  trial  before  him. 


22 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


Alexander  Campbell  tells  us  in  his  Memoirs 

of  Thomas  Campbell,  (page  23)  that  the  Declara¬ 
tion  and  Address  was  in  press  when  he  arrived  in  America 
in  the  autumn  of  1809.  He  says  that  he  read  its  proof 
sheets  with  special  attention  as  they  came  from  the 
printer  and  that  he  remarked  to  his  father,  at  the  close, 
that  he  would  have  to  abandon  infant  baptism  if  he  ad¬ 
hered  to  the  premises  contained  in  the  document.  He 
says, 

I  read  to  him  the  third  proposition,  page  48,  expressed  in  the 
following  wTords:  “That  in  order  (to  church  union  and  commun¬ 
ion)  nothing  ought  to  be  inculcated  upon  Christians  as  articles  of 
faith  nor  required  of  them  as  terms  of  communion  but  what  is  ex¬ 
pressly  taught  and  enjoined  upon  them  in  the  Word  of  God.  Nor 
ought  anything  to  be  admitted  as  of  divine  obligation  in  their 
church  constitution  and  managements  but  wiiat  is  expressly  en¬ 
joined  by  the  authority  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles 
upon  the  New  Testament  church;  either  in  express  terms,  or  by 
approved  precedent.’ ’ 

On  reading  this,  I  asked  him  in  what  passage  or  portion  of  the 
inspired  oracles  could  we  find  a  precept  or  an  express  precedent 
for  the  baptism  or  sprinkling  of  infants  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit?  His  response  in  substance  wras  “It 
was  merely  inferential.” 

From  the  above  statement,  it  is  perfectly  clear  that 
when  Thomas  Campbell  broke  away  from  the  Presbytery 
of  Chartiers  he  had  no  thought  of  founding  a  new  church 
or  of  withdrawing  from  the  church  of  which  he  consid¬ 
ered  himself  a  member.  His  action,  in  voluntarily  dis¬ 
associating  himself  from  the  synod  and  presbytery  with 
which  he  had  been  previously  connected,  did  not  amount 
to  withdrawal  from  the  larger  fellowship  of  the  Church 
of  God.  He  must  have  felt  that  he  was  a  Christian  first 
and  a  Presbyterian  second;  and  that  any  change  in  the 
status  of  his  Presbyterianism  did  not  necessarily  carry 
with  it  his  exclusion  from  the  wider  fellowship  of  the 
church  in  general.  LTpon  the  basis  of  past  inheritance, 
as  well  as  a  thorough-going  study  of  the  Scriptures,  he 
felt  thoroughly  convinced  of  the  necessit}T  for  the  unity 
of  Christ’s  followers. 


Introduction 


23 


The  denominational  theory  of  the  church,  with  its  idea 
of  variant  branches  all  separate  and  yet  all  equal  in 
value,  made  no  appeal  to  him.  The  church  about  which 
he  read  in  the  New  Testament  was  not  split  up  into  de¬ 
nominations  and  he  saw  no  warrant  for  the  sectarian  di¬ 
visions  of  his  own  day.  He  felt  himself  to  be  a  brother 
to  all  who  sincerely  believed  in  and  worshiped  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  in  all  the  churches  and  he  desired  to  have 
fellowship  with  them.  It  was  this  desire  which  prompted 
the  writing  and  publication  of  the  Declaration  and  Ad¬ 
dress.  It  seemed  to  Thomas  Campbell  that  all  who  really 
wished  to  be  followers  of  Christ  would  likewise  long  for 
fellowship  with  each  other.  Moreover,  if  all  human 
obstacles  could  be  brushed  aside  such  a  fellowship  ap¬ 
peared  inherently  possible.  In  order  to  help  in  brushing 
these  obstacles  awav  the  Declaration  and  Address  was 
sent  forth  upon  its  mission.  Although  intended,  pri¬ 
marily,  for  the  ministers  in  the  various  churches,  it  was 
specifically  addressed  “To  all  that  love  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  in  sincerity  throughout  all  the  churches.” 

The  Declaration  and  Address  grew  out  of  a  meeting 
held  at  Buffalo,  August  17,  1809,  which  was  attended  by 
a  number  of  persons  of  different  religious  denominations 
who  were  more  or  less  perplexed  in  their  views  of  reli¬ 
gion.  Doubtless,  most  of  them  were  friends  and  followers 
of  Thomas  Campbell  who  had  heard  him  express  his  con¬ 
victions  and  who  were  disposed  to  share  them  with  him. 
This  countryside  group  meeting,  which  was  destined  to 
become  historic,  did  not  adjourn  until  it  had  organized 
the  Christian  Association  of  Washington,  Pennsylvania, 
and  had  appointed  a  committee  of  twenty-one  of  its  num¬ 
ber  “to  confer  with  Elder  Thomas  Campbell  to  determine 
upon  the  proper  means  to  carry  into  effect  the  important 
end  of  their  association.”  This  committee  met  in  due 
time  and  as  a  result  of  its  activities  the  Declaration  and 
Address  was  written  and  published.  There  seems  to  be 
no  question  about  the  fact  that  Thomas  Campbell  was 
entirely  responsible  for  the  authorship  of  the  document. 


24 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


In  a  footnote  to  tlie  version  of  the  Declaration  pub¬ 
lished  in  the  Memoirs  of  Thomas  Campbell,  Alexander 
Campbell  explains  the  purpose  of  the  pamphlet  after 
this  fashion: 

This  “Declaration  and  Address’ ’  was  not  the  constitution  of 
any  church  existing  then  or  now,  but  a  “Declaration”  of  a  pur 
pose  to  institute  a  society  of  ‘  ‘  Voluntary  Advocates  for  Church 
Reformation.”  Its  sole  purpose  was  to  promote  “simple  Evan¬ 
gelical  Christianity,”  and  for  this  end  resolved  to  countenance  and 
support  such  ministers,  and  such  only,  as  exhibited  manifest  con¬ 
formity  to  the  original  standard,  in  conversation,  doctrine,  zeal, 
and  diligence;  such  as  practiced  that  simple,  original  form  of 
Christianity  expressly  exhibited  upon  the  sacred  page;  without  in¬ 
culcating  anything  of  human  authority,  of  private  opinion,  or  of 
inventions  of  men,  as  having  any  place  in  the  constitution,  faith, 
or  worship  of  the  Christian  Church ;  or  anything  as  a  matter  of 
Christian  faith  or  duty  for  which  there  cannot  be  expressly  pro¬ 
duced  a  “thus  saith  the  Lord,  either  in  expressed  terms,  or  by  ap¬ 
proved  precedence .  ” 

It  may  be  safehT  inferred  that  Alexander  Campbell, 
who  wrote  the  above  footnote  many  years  after  the  orig¬ 
inal  publication  of  the  work  to  which  it  was  attached, 
knew  what  his  father  had  in  mind  when  he  prepared  the 
work.  Nevertheless,  there  exists  a  possibility  that  even 
he  may  have  read  into  the  original  document  something 
more  than  was  intended  by  its  author  when  it  was  writ¬ 
ten.  Both  of  the  Campbells  had  been  led  by  later  de¬ 
velopments  to  go  farther  than  Thomas  intended  when  he 
separated  from  the  Presbytery  of  Chartiers.  The  fun¬ 
damental  principles  which  guided  the  later  development 
are  all  present  in  the  Declaration  and  Address,  but  the 
ultimate  consequences  of  these  principles  are  certainly 
implicit  rather  than  explicit  in  the  document. 

When  Thomas  Campbell  prepared  the  book,  he  was 
not  yet  ready  to  abandon  infant  baptism,  or  affusion, 
although  it  appears  that  his  son  was  ready  to  do  so, 
or,  at  least,  was  inclined  in  this  direction.  Undoubt¬ 
edly,  the  position  which  both  Thomas  and  Alexander 
came  to  take  later  upon  these  and  other  questions  was  di¬ 
rectly  derived  from  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  Magna 
Chart  a  of  their  movement.  It  is  only  fair  to  say,  how- 


Introduction 


25 


ever,  that  these  later  conclusions  had  no  place  in  the 
thought  of  Thomas  Campbell  when  he  began  his  inde¬ 
pendent  work.  At  that  time,  he  was  still  a  Presbyterian 
in  all  important  particulars  and  he  would  have  dreaded 
originating  any  innovations  which  might  have  had  a 
tendency  to  separate  him  from  his  Presbyterian  breth¬ 
ren.  He  appears  to  have  felt  that  there  were  no  doc¬ 
trinal  questions  of  any  importance  which  could  possibly 
stand  in  the  way  of  Christian  union  if  the  unscriptural 
and  un-Christian  accretions  of  the  ages  could  be  re¬ 
moved.  It  must  have  saddened  his  heart  greatly  in 
later  years  when  he  realized  that  the  problem  of  dis¬ 
union  was  much  more  formidable  than  it  had  previously 
appeared  to  him. 


II.  FUNDAMENTAL  PRINCIPLES 


S  it  is  our  purpose  to  allow  the  Declaration  and  Ad- 


dress  to  speak  for  itself  wherever  possible,  we  shall 
reserve  any  extended  analysis  of  its  principles  until  we 
have  the  text  itself  to  deal  with.  It  is  important,  how¬ 
ever,  that  we  should  have  a  reasonably  clear  idea  of  the 
essential  principles  which  underlie  the  document  before 
we  begin  its  perusal.  The  work  itself  lays  down  thirteen 
propositions  and  consists,  for  the  most  part,  in  an  intro¬ 
duction  to  these  propositions  and  a  commentary  upon 
them.  Unfortunatelv,  most  modern  readers  are  so  far 
removed  from  the  setting  of  the  book  that  the  commen¬ 
tary  which  it  strove  to  supply  itself  is  of  little  use.  It 
is  for  this  reason  that  the  Declaration  and  Address  re¬ 
ceives  such  slight  attention  from  the  average  reader  of 
today.  It  has  become  a  religious  classic  and,  ]ike  most 
other  classics,  it  has  been  embalmed  in  the  veneration 
produced  by  its  own  sanctity.  As  a  result,  it  possesses 
little  value  for  the  public  at  large.  At  a  time  when  its 
principles  are  more  needed  than  ever  before  in  the  his¬ 
tory  of  the  church,  it  is  unavailable  for  general  use. 
The  chief  object  which  the  present  study  has  in  mind 


26 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


is  to  bring  it  back  once  more  to  the  field  of  living  reli¬ 
gious  literature.  If  this  can  be  done,  we  feel  assured 
that  its  influence  will  prove  both  inspiring  and  whole¬ 
some. 

The  principles  enunciated  in  the  thirteen  propositions 
of  the  Declaration  may  be  summed  up  in  the  following 
statements: 

First,  the  essential  unity  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

Second,  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Scriptures. 

Third,  the  special  authority  of  the  New  Testament. 

Fourth,  the  fallacy  of  human  creeds. 

Fifth,  the  essential  brotherhood  of  all  who  love  Christ  and  try 
to  follow  him. 

Sixth,  that  if  human  innovations  can  be  removed  from  the 
church,  the  followers  of  Christ  will  unite  upon  the  scriptural  plat¬ 
form. 

Beyond  any  question,  Thomas  Campbell  believed  all  of 
these  propositions  to  be  true  and  also  believed  that  if 
properly  presented  they  would  win  the  acceptance  of 
Christendom.  Whether  they  have  been  properly  pre¬ 
sented  or  not,  may  be  a  question  for  debate,  but  it  is  cer¬ 
tainly  true  that  they  have  not  yet  won  the  acceptance  of 
Christendom  as  a  whole.  It  would  not  seem  out  of  place 
at  this  juncture  to  briefly  analyze  the  present-day  status 
of  Thomas  Campbell’s  propositions. 

With  regard  to  the  first  and  most  essential  of  his  prin¬ 
ciples,  the  one  which  underlies  all  the  others  and  which 
motived  the  preparation  of  the  Declaration  and  Address , 
the  basic  ideal  of  Christian  unity,  there  can  be  no  ques¬ 
tion  but  that  present-day  religious  forces  are  more  and 
more  drifting  in  the  direction  of  Thomas  Campbell.  The 
theory  of  denominationalism  is  no  longer  held  by  the 
thought  leaders  of  the  Christian  world.  The  eloquent 
appeals  in  behalf  of  union  and  the  vigorous  criticisms  of 
sectarianism  contained  in  the  Declaration  and  Address  are 
now  being  re-echoed  throughout  the  pulpits  of  evangel¬ 
ical  Christendom.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  a  large  portion 
of  the  language  found  in  the  pages  prepared  by  Thomas 
Campbell  could  be  quoted  verbatim  and  with  approval  by 


Introduction 


97 

LJ  l 

the  majority  of  present  day  Protestant  ministers.  Thus 
far,  at  least,  Thomas  Campbell  has  “arrived.” 

The  second  and  third  principles  are  also  widely  ac¬ 
cepted  by  the  Christian  forces  of  today.  Very  few  re¬ 
ligious  bodies  stress  the  Old  Testament  as  in  any  way  au¬ 
thoritative  so  far  as  the  Church  of  Christ  is  concerned. 
Tacitly,  or  otherwise,  most  Christians  agree  that  the 
essential  principles  of  the  gospel  are  to  be  found  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  that  if  we  live  by  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  ideal  this  will  be  quite  sufficient  to  prove  our  Chris¬ 
tianity.  Most  of  the  accretions  of  which  Thomas  Camp¬ 
bell  complained  have  already  been  swept  away.  People 
are  quite  willing  to  ask  for  no  more  than  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  contains.  The  difficulty  now  seems  to  be  that  there 
is  a  disposition  not  to  ask  for  that  much.  Since  Thomas 
Campbell  s  day,  the  progress  of  biblical  criticism  has  led 
to  somewhat  radical  developments  in  the  thinking  of  many 
Christians.  Of  course,  the  large  majority  believe  in  the 
substantial  authority  of  the  New  Testament  text,  but  it 
is  extremely  questionable  whether  the  Christian  ministry 
at  large  views  the  sacred  documents  with  anything  like 
the  reverence  which  is  implicit  throughout  the  Declaration 
and  Address. 

Thomas  Campbell  was  looked  upon  as  a  radical  in  his 
own  day  but  he  would  be  regarded  as  exceedingly  con¬ 
servative  if  he  were  alive  now.  Whether  he  accepted  the 
prevailing  theory  of  verbal  inspiration  or  not,  there  can 
be  no  question  but  that  he  fully  believed  in  the  substan¬ 
tial  infallibility  of  the  text.  It  is  just  at  this  point 
that  the  principles  which  he  advocated  appear  to  be  most 
directly  imperiled.  His  only  platform  for  Christian 
union  was  the  New  Testament  and  he  believed  this  plat¬ 
form  to  be  infallible.  If  the  infallibility  of  the  New 
Testament,  at  least  in  all  essential  particulars,  can  be 
destroyed,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  his  plea  can  avoid 
being  destroyed  with  it.  It  may  not  be  necessary  for  the 
modern  mind  to  interpret  the  Scriptures  in  precisely  the 
same  way  as  they  were  interpreted  in  the  Declaration,  but 


28 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


if  the  document  is  to  be  worth  anything  as  a  proposal 
for  Christian  unity,  it  certainly  is  necessary  that  the 
New  Testament  should  be  regarded  as  authoritative. 

Modern  progress  has  declared  quite  as  decisively  in 
favor  of  Thomas  Campbell’s  position  upon  human  creeds 
as  it  has  with  regard  to  his  attitude  upon  Christian  union. 
It  is  true  that  most  churches  retain  their  time-worn  con¬ 
fessions  of  faith  but  very  few  of  them  require  an  accept¬ 
ance  of  these  standards  or  even  an  understanding  of  them 
for  admission  to  the  church.  A  confession  of  personal 
faith  in  Christ  is  accepted  as  an  adequate  theological 
equipment  for  church  membership  in  almost  all  evangelical 
bodies.  It  is  only  fair  to  say  that  most  Protestant  de¬ 
nominations  adhere  to  their  creedal  pronouncements  for 
the  benefit  of  the  clergy  only,  and  even  the  clergy  are 
apt  to  take  many  of  the  propositions  contained  in  the 
creed  with  a  good  deal  of  allowance.  The  disposition  now 
with  the  most  strenuous  creedal  advocates  is  to  go  back 
to  the  ecumenical  symbols  and  especially  the  Nicene  for¬ 
mula  as  their  last  bulwark.  These  were  the  first  human 
creeds  produced  in  the  church  and  apparently  they  will 
be  the  last  to  be  discarded.  Nevertheless,  the  logic  which 
sweeps  away  the  Westminster  confession  and  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles  will  in  the  long  run  accomplish  the  same 
result  for  the  creed  of  Nicea.  The  author  of  the  Declara¬ 
tion  and  Address  is  still  ahead  of  his  age  upon  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  creedal  reform,  but  the  age  is  rapidly  catching  up 
with  him.  At  this  point  again,  Thomas  Campbell  surely 
scores  and  scores  heavily. 

The  fifth  principle  on  the  list  is  doubtless  modern 
enough  to  meet  with  the  approval  of  all.  Certainly  the 
trend  of  present  day  thought  is  in  favor  of  eliminating 
the  non-essential  and  accidental  characteristics  of  all  com¬ 
munions  in  an  effort  to  bring  together  those  who  are 
genuine  followers  of  Christ.  Few  people  will  dispute 
the  fact  that  there  are  true  Christians  in  all  the  churches. 
Few  people,  also,  will  question  the  fact  that  the  test  of 
Christianity  in  these  cases  is  internal  rather  than  ex- 


Introduction 


29 


temal.  It  seems  tragic  that  these  disciples  of  the  Master 
should  be  kept  apart  by  unimportant  and  in  many  cases 
trivial  considerations;  and  yet  when  any  effort  is  made 
to  bring  them  together,  the  most  insuperable  obstacles 
block  the  way.  Thomas  Campbell  undoubtedly  believed 
that  a  return  to  the  New’  Testament  order  in  the  matter 
of  church  forms  and  organization  would  bring  together 
all  who  were  trying  to  follow  the  New  Testament  ideal 
of  life.  Experience,  however,  seems  to  prove  that  this 
solution  will  not  accomplish  the  end  desired.  There  are 
good  Christians  today,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  life,  who  do  not  want  to  return  to  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  conception  of  the  church.  There  are  still  others 
who  claim  that  we  cannot  tell  what  the  New  Testament 
conception  of  the  church  is.  These  people  cannot  be 
brought  together  on  the  New  Testament  platform.  It  is 
uncertain  as  to  just  how  many  there  are  of  them  but  what¬ 
ever  number  there  may  be,  there  is  no  provision  for 
them  in  the  unity  platform  of  the  Declaration  and  Ad¬ 
dress. 

The  sixth  proposition  has  been  discussed  already  in 
connection  with  the  one  which  immediately  precedes  it 
on  the  list.  It  seemed  unthinkable  to  Thomas  Campbell 
that  anv  real  Christian  should  denv  the  absolute  author- 

»/  t/ 

ity  of  the  New  Testament.  This  being  the  case,  he  could 
not  understand  why  all  Christians  could  not  come  to- 
gether  on  the  New  Testament  platform.  The  very  fact 
that  they  were  so  widely  separated  simply  proved  that 
they  had  diverged  from  the  common  basis  of  the  faith. 
If  they  could  be  brought  back  to  this  common  basis,  it 
appeared  only  logical  that  their  differences  should  disap¬ 
pear.  AYhat  is  not  taken  into  account  in  this  argument 
is  the  immense  influence  of  two  thousand  years  of  church 
history  and  development.  Even  when  the  causes  which 
were  originally  responsible  for  schism  are  removed,  the 
habits  of  mind  and  thought  which  the  schism  has  engen¬ 
dered  still  remain.  In  order  to  overcome  the  inertia  of 
past  prejudices  and  beliefs,  it  will  doubtless,  require  many 


30 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


years,  possibly  even  centuries,  of  definite  effort.  Christian 
unity  is  not  as  easy  a  proposition  as  it  appeared  to 
Thomas  Campbell. 

III.  GENERAL  ANALYSIS 

IN  the  original  draft  of  the  document,  the  Declaration 
and  Address  is  divided  into  three  sections.  The  first 
constitutes  what  was  styled  the  “Declaration,”  the  sec¬ 
ond  the  “Address,”  and  the  third  the  “Appendix.”  The 
Appendix  contains  about  three-fifths  of  the  brochure,  as 
originally  published,  the  Address  about  one-third,  and 
the  Declaration  about  one-sixteenth.  Aside  from  these 
three  main  divisions,  the  book  is  singularly  devoid  of 
headings,  topical  arrangement,  or  any  other  devices  for 
its  interpretation.  The  paragraph  structure  is,  moreover, 
far  from  ideal.  Indeed,  the  whole  wTork  is  presented  in 
a  form  calculated  to  involve  it  in  that  obscurity  which 
has  largely  surrounded  it  from  the  date  of  its  publica¬ 
tion. 

It  may  appear  like  laying  hands  on  the  ark  for  any 
one  of  the  spiritual  descendants  of  the  author  to  presume 
to  make  additions,  explanatory  or  otherwise,  in  order 
to  supply  the  original  deficiency.  Nevertheless  from  the 
viewpoint  of  the  writer,  it  is  better  to  take  some  liberties 
with  an  ancient  document  in  order  that  the  truths  which 
it  contains  may  be  made  more  intelligible  than  it  is  to 
allow  those  truths  to  remain  useless  by  reason  of  a  mis¬ 
placed  reverence.  Thomas  Campbell  wrote  the  Declara¬ 
tion  and  Address  in  order  to  mold  the  thinking  and  life 
of  the  religious  communities  about  him.  He  did  not  care 
how  the  document  was  treated  so  long  as  the  principles 
which  it  contained  wrere  disseminated.  We  pay  the  greatest 
reverence  to  his  name  when  we  help  to  extend  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  his  ideas.  We  shall  not,  therefore,  apologize 
for  the  decidedly  free  handling  which  his  masterpiece 
will  receive  at  our  hands.  With  the  text  itself  wTe  shall 
not  take  any  special  liberties,  but  we  shall  feel  free  to 


Introduction 


‘">1 
ol 

arrange  the  material  in  such  a  way  as  to  exhibit  its  mean¬ 
ing  more  clearly  and  we  shall  add  such  comment  as  in  our 
judgment  will  assist  the  reader  in  laying  hold  of  the  great 
truths  which  the  book  proclaims. 

In  the  original  edition  of  the  work,  the  following  pref¬ 
atory  note  under  date  of  Sept.  7,  1809,  preceded  the 
opening  sentences  of  the  Declaration : 

At  a  meeting  held  at  Buffalo,  August  17,  1S09,  consisting  of 
persons  of  different  religious  denominations,  most  of  them  in  an 
unsettled  state  as  to  a  fixed  Gospel  ministry,  it  was  unanimously 
agreed,  upon  the  considerations,  and  for  the  purposes  hereinafter 
declared,  to  form  themselves  into  a  religious  association,  desig¬ 
nated  as  above,  which  they  accordingly  did,  and  appointed  twenty- 
one  of  their  number  to  meet  and  confer  together,  and,  with  the 
assistance  of  Elder  Thomas  Campbell,  minister  of  the  Gospel,  to 

determine  upon  the  proper  means  to  carry  into  effect  the  impor¬ 
tant  ends  of  their  Association;  the  result  of  which  conference 

was  the  following  Declaration  and  Address,  agreed  upon  and 

ordered  to  be  printed,  at  the  expense,  and  for  the  benefit  of  the 
society. 

Immediately  following  this  note,  the  reader  plunges 
into  the  main  body  of  the  document.  In  its  original 
form  the  only  heading  or  introductory  guidance  afforded 
by  the  author  is  contained  in  the  caption:  ‘ ‘ Declaration, 
etc.” 

Alexander  Campbell,  in  the  edition  of  the  work  which 
he  re-published  later,  appears  to  have  felt  the  desirability 
of  some  explanatory  material  at  this  point  for  he  ap¬ 
pended  the  introductory  footnote  on  the  first  page :  which 
we  have  already  quoted  in  detail.  Upon  two  or  three 
other  occasions,  he  included  similar  comments,  without, 
however,  adding  in  any  great  degree  to  the  popularization 
of  the  document. 

We  shall  now  proceed  with  the  original  text  with  the 
addition  of  such  explanatory  apparatus  as  in  our  judg¬ 
ment  is  demanded  in  order  to  make  it  thoroughly  in¬ 
telligible  at  the  present  time. 


32 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


IV.  DECLARATION  AND  ADDRESS 

The  Declaration  and  Address 

Introductory  Statement 

Assertion  of  the  Eight  of  Private  Judgment. — From  the  series 
of  events  which  have  taken  place  in  the  Churches  for  many  years 
past,  especially  in  his  Western  country,  as  well  as  from  what  we 
know  in  general  of  the  present  state  of  things  in  the  Christian 
world,  we  are  persuaded  that  it  is  high  time  for  us  not  only  to 
think,  but  also  to  act,  for  ourselves;  to  see  with  our  own  eyes, 
and  to  take  all  our  measures  directly  and  immediately  from  the 
Divine  standard;  to  this  alone  we  feel  ourselves  Divinely  bound 
to  be  conformed,  as  by  this  alone  we  must  be  judged.  We  are 
also  persuaded  that  as  no  man  can  be  judged  for  his  brother,  so 
no  man  can  judge  for  his  brother;  every  man  must  be  allowed  to 
judge  for  himself,  as  every  man  must  bear  his  own  judgment — 
must  gave  account  of  himself  to  Cod. 

Authority  of  the  Scriptures. — We  are  also  of  opinion  that  as 
the  Divine  word  is  equally  binding  upon  all,  so  all  lie  under  an 
equal  obligation  to  be  bound  by  it,  and  it  alone;  and  not  by  any 
human  interpretation  of  it;  and  that,  therefore,  no  man  has  a 
right  to  judge  his  brother,  except  in  so  far  as  he  manifestly  vio¬ 
lates  the  express  letter  of  the  law.  That  every  such  judgment  is 
an  express  violation  of  the  law  of  Christ,  a  daring  usurpation  of 
his  throne,  and  a  gross  intrusion  upon  the  rights  and  liberties  of 
his  subjects.  We  are,  therefore,  of  opinion  that  we  should  be¬ 
ware  of  such  things;  that  we  should  keep  at  the  utmost  distance 
from  everything  of  this  nature;  and  that,  knowing  the  judgment 
of  God  against  them  that  commit  such  things,  we  should  neither 
do  the  same  ourselves,  nor  take  pleasure  in  them  that  do  them. 

The  Curse  of  Religious  Schism. — Moreover,  being  well  aware, 
from  sad  experience,  of  the  heinous  nature  and  pernicious  tendency 
of  religious  controversy  among  Christians;  tired  and  sick  of  the 
bitter  jarrings  and  j anglings  of  a  party  spirit,  we  would  desire 
to  be  at  rest;  and,  were  it  possible,  we  would  also  desire  to  adopt 
and  recommend  such  measures  as  would  give  rest  to  our  brethren 
throughout  all  the  Churches,  as  would  restore  unity,  peace,  and 
purity  to  the  whole  Church  of  God. 

The  Only  Way  to  Union. — This  desirable  rest,  however,  we  ut¬ 
terly  despair  either  to  find  for  ourselves,  or  to  be  able  to  recom¬ 
mend  to  our  brethren,  by  continuing  amid  the  diversity  and  rancor 
of  party  contentions,  the  veering  uncertainty  and  clashings  of 
human  opinions:  nor,  indeed,  can  we  reasonably  expect  to  find  it 
anywhere  but  in  Christ  and  his  simple  word,  which  is  the  same 
yesterday,  today,  and  forever.  Our  desire,  therefore,  for  our- 


Introduction 


33 


selves  and  our  brethren  would  be,  that,  rejecting  human  opinions 
and  the  inventions  of  men  as  of  any  authority,  or  as  having  any 
place  in  the  Church  of  God,  we  might  forever  cease  from  further 
contentions  about  such  things;  returning  to  and  holding  fast  by 
the  original  standard;  taking  the  Divine  word  alone  for  our  rule; 
and  Holy  Spirit  for  our  teacher  and  guide,  to  lead  us  into  all 
truth;  and  Christ  alone,  as  exhibited  in  the  word,  for  our  salva¬ 
tion;  that,  by  so  doing,  we  may  be  at  peace  among  ourselves,  fol¬ 
low  peace  with  all  men,  and  holiness,  without  which  no  man  shall 
see  the  Lord.  Impressed  with  these  sentiments,  we  have  resolved 
as  follows: 


Y.  RESOLUTIONS 

The  Christian  Association. — That  we  form  ourselves  into  a 
religious  association  under  the  denomination  of  the  Christian  As¬ 
sociation  of  "Washington,  for  the  sole  purpose  of  promoting  simple 
evangelical  Christianity,  free  from  all  mixture  of  human  opinions 
and  inventions  of  men. 

The  Association ’s  Finances. — That  each  member,  according 
to  ability,  cheerfully  and  liberally  subscribe  a  certain  specified 
sum,  to  be  paid  half  yearly,  for  the  purpose  of  raising  a  fund  to 
support  a  pure  Gospel  ministry,  that  shall  reduce  to  practice  that 
whole  form  of  doctrine,  worship,  discipline,  and  government,  ex¬ 
pressly  revealed  and  enjoined  in  the  word  of  God.  And,  also,  for 
supplying  the  poor  with  the  holy  Scriptures. 

Missionary  Work  of  the  Association. — That  this  Society 
consider  it  a  duty,  and  shall  use  all  proper  means  in  its  power,  to 
encourage  the  formation  of  similar  associations;  and  shall  for  this 
purpose  hold  itself  in  readiness,  upon  application,  to  correspond 
with,  and  render  all  possible  assistance  to,  such  as  may  desire  to 
associate  for  the  same  desirable  and  important  purposes. 

The  Association  not  a  Church. — That  this  Society  by  no 
means  considers  itself  a  Church,  nor  does  at  all  assume  to  itself 
the  powers  peculiar  to  such  a  society;  nor  do  the  members,  as  such, 
consider  themselves  as  standing  connected  in  that  relation;  nor 
as  at  all  associated  for  the  peculiar  purposes  of  Church  associa¬ 
tions;  but  merely  as  voluntary  advocates  for  Church  reformation; 
and,  as  possessing  the  powers  common  to  all  individuals,  who  may 
please  to  associate  in  a  peaceable  and  orderly  manner,  for  any 
lawful  purpose,  namely,  the  disposal  of  their  time,  counsel,  and 
property,  as  they  may  see  cause. 

Immediate  Scope  of  the  Work  of  the  Association. — That  this 
Society,  formed  for  the  sole  purpose  of  promoting  simple  evan¬ 
gelical  Christianity,  shall,  to  the  utmost  of  its  power,  countenance 
and  support  such  ministers,  and  such  only,  as  exhibit  a  manifest 


34 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


conformity  to  the  original  standard  in  conversation  and  doctrine, 
in  zeal  and  diligence;  only  such  as  reduce  to  practice  that  sim¬ 
ple  original  form  of  Christianity,  expressly  exhibited  upon  the  sa¬ 
cred  page;  without  attempting  to  inculcate  anything  of  human 
authority,  of  private  opinion,  or  inventions  of  men,  as  having  any 
place  in  the  constitution,  faith,  or  worship,  of  the  Christian  Church, 
or  anything  as  matter  of  Christian  faith  or  duty,  for  which  there 
cannot  be  expressly  produced  a  “Thus  saith  the  Lord,  either  in 
express  terms,  or  by  approved  precedent.  ’  ’ 

Executive  Committee  of  the  Association. — That  a  Standing  Com¬ 
mittee  of  twenty-one  members  of  unexceptional  moral  character, 
inclusive  of  the  secretary  and  treasurer,  be  chosen  annually  to  su¬ 
perintend  the  interests,  and  transact  the  business  of  the  Society. 
And  that  said  Committee  be  invested  with  full  powers  to  act  and 
do,  in  the  name  and  behalf  of  their  constituents,  whatever  the 
Society  had  previously  determined,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying 
into  effect  the  entire  object  of  its  institution,  and  that  in  case 
of  any  emergency,  unprovided  for  in  the  existing  determinations 
of  the  Society,  said  Committee  be  empowered  to  call  a  special 
meeting  for  that  purpose. 

Time  of  Meeting. — That  this  Society  meet  at  least  twice  a  year, 
viz.:  on  the  first  Thursday  of  May,  and  of  November,  and  that  the 
collectors  appointed  to  receive  the  half-yearly  quotas  of  the  prom¬ 
ised  subscriptions,  be  in  readiness,  at  or  before  each  meeting,  to 

make  their  returns  to  the  treasurer,  that  he  may  be  able  to  report 

upon  the  state  of  the  funds.  The  next  meeting  to  be  held  at 
Washington  on  the  first  Thursday  of  November  next. 

Program  of  the  Meetings. — That  each  meeting  of  the  Society 
be  opened  with  a  sermon,  the  constitution  and  address  read,  and 
a  collection  lifted  for  the  benefit  of  the  Society;  and  that  all 

communications  of  a  public  nature  be  laid  before  the  Society  at 

its  half-yearly  meetings. 

Appeal  for  Financial  Support. — That  this  Society,  relying  upon 
the  all-sufficiency  of  the  Church ’s  Head,  and,  through  his  grace, 
looking  with  an  eye  of  confidence  to  the  generous  liberality  of 
the  sincere  friends  of  genuine  Christianity;  holds  itself  engaged 
to  afford  a  competent  support  to  such  ministers  as  the  Lord  may 
graciously  dispose  to  assist,  at  the  request,  and  by  invitation  of 
the  Society,  in  promoting  a  pure  evangelical  reformation,  by  the 
simple  preaching  of  the  everlasting  Gospel,  and  the  administration 
of  its  ordinances  in  an  exact  conformity  to  the  Divine  standard 
as  aforesaid;  and  that,  therefore,  whatever  the  friends  of  the 
institution  shall  please  to  contribute  toward  the  support  of  min¬ 
isters  in  connection  with  this  Society,  who  may  be  sent  forth  to 
preach  at  considerable  distances,  the  same  shall  be  gratefully  re¬ 
ceived  and  acknowledged  as  a  donation  to  its  funds. 


Introduction 


35 


VI.  COMMENT  UPON  THE  DECLARATION 

HE  Declaration  furnishes  an  interesting  illustration 


J-  of  the  impossibility  of  realizing  an  ideal  without 
resorting  to  practical  means  of  achievement.  Thomas 
Campbell  did  not  want  to  found  a  church  for  he  felt 
that  there  were  too  many  churches  already.  If  any  one 
had  told  him  that  within  a  hundred  years  his  followers 
would  number  over  a  million  and  would  stand  fifth  on 
the  roll  of  Protestant  bodies  in  America,  he  would  have 
shrunk  back  in  horror.  He  did  not  want  to  found  a 
new  denomination  even  though  he  had  been  assured 
that  this  denomination  would  become  the  most  powerful 
and  numerous  of  all  Christian  bodies.  Such  a  consum¬ 
mation,  to  his  mind,  would  simply  have  seemed  like 
adding  fuel  to  the  sectarian  fires. 

It  was  for  the  above  reason  that  the  Christian  Asso¬ 
ciation  of  Washington,  Pennsylvania,  was  organized. 
Its  constitution,  as  given  above,  expressly  disclaims  any 
thought  of  church  organization.  It  was  to  work  among 
the  churches  but  was  not  itself  to  assume  the  name  or 
functions  of  a  church.  The  author  of  the  Declaration 
was  very  explicit  upon  this  point  and  held  to  it  tena¬ 
ciously  until  the  logic  of  events  forced  him  to  revise  his 
views.  Just  precisely  what  he  thought  he  could  accom¬ 
plish  through  such  an  organization  as  the  Association 
is  difficult  to  say.  Perhaps  he  never  stopped  to  analyze 
the  situation  closely  enough  to  think  it  through  to  its 
rela  practical  details. 

The  Declaration  calls  upon  ministers  in  all  the  churches 
to  discard  their  man-made  creeds  and  customs  and  to 
come  together  upon  the  simple  New  Testament  platform. 
Did  Mr.  Campbell  think  that  if  they  were  to  do  this 
they  could  remain  in  the  denominations  to  which  they 
belonged?  If  so.  as  Robert  Richardson  in  his  biography 
of  Alexander  Campbell,  said  afterward,  he  displayed  an 
extraordinary  degree  of  credulity.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  these  ministers  came  out  of  their  denominations, 


36 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


where  were  they  to  go?  Doubtless  Thomas  Campbell 
would  have  answered  this  inquiry  by  sa3Ting  that  they 
should  go  into  the  Church  of  Christ  without  any  denom¬ 
inational  qualification.  No  church  answering  precisely 
to  this  description,  however,  existed  at  this  time.  The 
Christian  Association  did  not  even  furnish  such  a 
church.  It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  the  Declaration 
was  calculated  to  call  men  and  women  out  of  the  denom¬ 
inational  churches,  while  at  the  same  time  expressly 
stipulating  that  it  furnished  no  church  for  them  to  enter. 
A  condition  so  anomalous  could  not  and  did  not  exist 
for  long. 

The  life  of  the  Christian  Association  was  indeed  re- 
markedly  brief  and  uneventful.  Alexander  Campbell 
says  that  upon  the  basis  embodied  in  the  Declaration 
his  father  succeeded  in  constituting  two  Christian  con¬ 
gregations  in  the  year  1810.  Both  of  these  congrega¬ 
tions  were  located  in  Washington  County,  Pennsvlvania. 
For  some  five  years,  Thomas  Campbell  labored  as  minis¬ 
ter  in  charge  of  the  two  churches,  being  assisted  in  his 
pastoral  work  by  Elder  James  Foster.  Archibald  Camp¬ 
bell,  the  brother  of  Alexander,  in  writing  of  this  period 
in  his  father’s  history  says  that  the  greater  portion  of 
the  members  of  the  two  congregations  mentioned,  “had 
been  in  communion  with  different  branches  of  the  Pres¬ 
byterian  denomination,  from  which  they  thought  proper 
to  secede  and  plant  themselves  upon  more  scriptural 
basis  of  prophets  and  apostles,  Jesus  the  Christ  being 
the  chief  cornerstone.”  The  status  of  such  a  work  must 
have  been  exceedingly  indefinite.  It  was  to  clarify  the 
situation  that,  at  the  close  of  the  year  1810,  Thomas 
Campbell  made  application  to  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg 
for  admission  “into  Christian  and  ministerial  com¬ 
munion.”  The  answer  to  his  petition  is  contained  in 
the  following  quotation  from  the  minutes  of  the  Synod 
for  the  afternoon  session  of  October  fourth,  1810: 

After  hearing  Mr.  Campbell  at  length,  and  his  answers  to  vari¬ 
ous  questions  proposed  to  him,  the  Synod  unanimously  resolved, 
that  however  specious  the  plan  of  the  Christian  Association  and 


Introduction 


or* 
o  i 


however  seducing  its  professions,  as  experience  of  the  effects 
of  similar  projects  in  other  parts  has  evinced  their  baleful  ten¬ 
dency  and  destructive  operations  on  the  whole  interests  of  reli¬ 
gion  by  promoting-  divisions  instead  of  union,  by  degrading  the 
ministerial  character,  by  providing  free  admission  to  any  errors 
in  doctrine,  and  to  any  corruptions  in  discipline,  whilst  a  nom¬ 
inal  approbation  of  the  Scriptures  as  the  only  standard  of  truth 
may  be  professed,  the  Synod  are  constrained  to  disapprove  the 
plan  and  its  native  effects. 

And  further,  for  the  above  and  many  other  important  reasons, 
it  was  resolved,  that  Mr.  Campbell 's  request  to  be  received  into 
ministerial  and  Christian  communion  cannot  be  granted. 

The  comment  of  Dr.  Richardson  upon  this  decision  is 
decidedly  to  the  point.  “For  a  party  to  have  admitted 
into  his  bosom  those  who  were  avowedly  bent  on  the 
destruction  of  partyism  would,  of  course,  have  been  per¬ 
fectly  suicidal.”  Thomas  Campbell’s  fear  of  founding 
another  denomination  kept  him  from  seeing  that  no  ex¬ 
isting  denomination  could  possibly  shelter  him  or  his 
followers.  Doubtless  the  alternatives  before  him  were 
hard  enough  as  they  still  are  todav,  but  there  was 
only  one  choice  possible.  The  fear  of  becoming  a  de¬ 
nomination  which  obsessed  Father  Campbell  and  his 
early  associates  still  clings,  in  a  measure,  to  their  fol¬ 
lowers.  They  even,  at  times,  do  violence  to  the  laws 
of  language  in  order  to  escape  from  the  sectarian  demon 
which  pursues  them.  The  simple  method  of  lower  cas¬ 
ing  a  capital  I)  has  been  used  to  achieve  the  end  de¬ 
sired  with  apparently  no  consideration  of  the  fact  that 
such  linguistic  antics  hardly  serve  to  disguise,  to  say 
nothing  of  changing,  the  actual  situation. 

It  seems  paradoxical  to  talk  of  an  undenominational 
denomination  and  yet  that  is  precisely  the  solution 
which  was  forced  upon  the  Campbells  and  which  is 
still  forced  upon  their  successors.  Lack  of  clearness, 
at  this  point,  in  the  thinking  of  certain  leaders  among 
the  Disciples  has  more  than  once  been  responsible  for 
cutting  the  sinews  of  their  work.  For  fear  of  being 
regarded  as  a  denomination,  these  well  intending  breth¬ 
ren  have  diffused  their  energies  into  a  species  of  ami¬ 
able  inter-denominational  fog.  As  a  result,  the  unde- 


38 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


nominational  plea  which  depends  for  its  success  upon 
vigorous  denominational  activity  has  lost  ground  in 
their  hands.  If  the  experience  of  Thomas  Campbell,  at 
the  very  beginning  of  our  history,  proves  anything,  it 
proves  that  without  a  definite  and  persistent  program 
of  practical  church  organization  there  is  no  hope  of 
realizing  the  ideal  which  we  have  placed  before  us. 

In  the  autumn  of  1813,  Thomas  Campbell  moved  to 
Guernsey  County,  Ohio,  where  he  engaged  in  farming 
and,  at  the  same  time  conducted  “an  English  mercan¬ 
tile  academy.  ”  While  thus  engaged,  he  delivered  a 
series  of  weekly  addresses  upon  “The  Christian  Institu¬ 
tion”  to  such  audiences  as  could  be  induced  to  listen 
to  them.  It  is  the  testimony  of  his  son  that  “the  reli- 
gious  mind  of  the  community  was  so  strongly  attached 
to  their  respective  church  establishments”  that  his 
father  labored  with  “but  little  apparent  success.”  Dis¬ 
couraged  by  the  failure  of  his  efforts,  in  the  autumn  of 
1815  the  elder  Campbell  moved  to  the  city  of  Pittsburg 
where  he  again  attempted  “to  constitute  a  worshiping 
congregation  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and 
prophets.”  It  was  here  also  that  he  opened  another 
“mercantile  academy,”  in  which  building  his  parish¬ 
ioners  met  on  the  first  dav  of  the  week  to  break  the 

* 

loaf.  Here  again  he  was  doomed  to  failure  so  far  as 
any  extensive  influence  upon  the  community  was  con¬ 
cerned.  The  little  group  which  he  gathered  around  him 
was  unable  to  support  his  work  and  feeling  that  he 
might  be  more  useful  in  another  field,  in  the  fall  of  1817 
he  moved  to  Iventuckv.  Here  he  came  in  contact  with 
the  Baptist  churches  and  was  received  with  very  con¬ 
siderable  cordiality.  The  chief  obstacle  to  his  teaching 
which  presented  itself  was  the  almost  universal  belief 
in  the  mystical  plan  of  conversion  which  existed  not 
only  in  one  but  in  almost  all  the  orthodox  denomina¬ 
tions.  While  Mr.  Campbell  gave  full  value  to  the  mys 
tical  element  in  religion,  he  looked  upon  conversion  as 
essentially  an  ethical  and  rational  process  dependent 


Introduction 


39 


upon  a  change  of  will  on  the  part  of  the  convert. 
He  gained  some  adherents  in  Kentucky  but  accomplished 
nothing  permanent.  As  a  result,  in  the  autumn  of  1819 
he  moved  back  to  Washington  County,  Pennsylvania, 
and  located  in  the  vicinity  of  the  two  congregations 
which  he  had  planted  some  ten  years  before. 

After  the  lapse  of  a  decade,  Thomas  Campbell  was 
surprised  to  find  that  the  principles,  which  he  had  so 
fondly  hoped  would  be  received  with  joy  by  the  Chris- 
tion  world  at  large,  had  secured  the  acceptance  of  only 
six  small  congregations,  numbering  in  all  not  more  than 
two  hundred  souls.  Moreover  these  six  churches,  in 
1815,  had  united  with  the  Redstone  Baptist  Association 
and  were  regarded  by  their  contemporaries  as  members 
of  that  denomination.  It  is  true  that  the  terms  upon 
which  the  union  was  constituted  left  the  little  group, 
under  the  direction  of  the  Campbells,  free  to  practice 
their  own  religion  in  their  own  way,  but  even  with  this 
stipulation  they  found  their  position  uncomfortable. 
The  situation  reached  a  climax  when  Alexander  Camp¬ 
bell  delivered  his  celebrated  “Sermon  on  the  Law”  in 
the  early  fall  of  1816.  Such  was  the  opposition  to  this 
discourse  among  the  Baptist  leaders  that  the  Camp¬ 
bells  only  escaped  excommunication  by  withdrawing 
prematurely  from  the  Redstone  Association  and  uniting 
with  the  Mahoning  Baptist  Association  on  the  Ohio 
Western  Reserve.  In  the  course  of  another  decade, 
under  the  fiery  evangelistic  preaching  of  Walter  Scott, 
the  churches  belonging  to  this  group  definitely  launched 
the  independent  propaganda  of  the  Disciples  of  Christ. 
With  their  convictions,  they  could  no  more  have  re¬ 
mained  in  the  Baptist  fellowship  than  their  leaders  had 
been  able  to  remain  in  the  Presbyterian  fellowship.  Oc¬ 
casionally  certain  well  intending  brethren  who  are  not 
conversant  with  the  facts  express  their  regrets  because 
of  the  failure  of  our  fathers  to  stay  with  the  Presbvte- 
rians  or  the  Baptists.  Those  who  have  read  the  history 
of  this  early  period  with  care  know  only  too  well  how 


40 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


utterly  impossible  was  any  such  consummation  of  the 
Campbells’  program. 

With  the  launching  of  the  independent  movement,  so 
ably  directed  by  Walter  Scott  and  his  associates,  the 
Christian  Association  of  Washington  County,  Pennsyl¬ 
vania,  came  to  an  end.  Although  for  some  years  before 
its  existence  had  been  purely  nominal,  it  had  neverthe¬ 
less  served  its  purpose.  It  proved  as  clearly  as  experi¬ 
ence  can  prove  anything  that  the  new  wine  cannot  be 
put  in  old  bottles  and  that  the  finest  idealism,  in  order 
to  achieve  results,  must  be  reduced  to  a  practical  basis. 
It  would  be  well  for  those  who  believe  in  the  program  of 
Thomas  Campbell  to  profit  by  his  experience.  Doubtless 
conditions  in  the  religious  world  today  are  different 
from  what  they  were  at  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  Nevertheless,  the  same  general  principles 
which  were  applicable  to  the  field  of  religion  at  that 
time  are  still  worthy  of  consideration.  There  is  nothing 
so  far  as  the  writer  can  see,  in  the  developments  of  the 
past  hundred  years  to  invalidate  the  lessons  taught  by 
the  early  history  of  the  Declaration  and  Address. 

THE  Declaration,  from  the  note  which  it  strikes  in 
its  first  sentence  down  to  the  last  word  in  the  last 
section  of  the  document,  is  definitely  and  distinctively 
Protestant.  It  begins  its  argument  by  an  assertion  of 
the  right  of  private  judgment  which  Luther  fought  for 
so  staunchly  in  the  sixteenth  century  and  which  has 
been  the  heart  of  the  Protestant  gospel  ever  since.  The 
statement  of  this  fundamental  principle  by  Thomas 
Campbell  not  only  includes  the  right  but  also  the  duty 
of  personal  judgment  and  action.  He  stakes  his  whole 
case  upon  this  vital  principle.  The  situation  in  the 
Christian  world  at  large,  and  especially  “in  this  west¬ 
ern  country,”  emphasizes  the  responsibility  which  is  laid 
upon  all  Christians  “not  only  to  think  but  also  to  act.” 

The  stern  Puritanical  background  of  Thomas  Camp¬ 
bell’s  theology  comes  out  clearly  in  this  pronounce- 


Introduction 


41 


ment.  It  is  as  though  he  feels  himself,  in  the  spirit  of 
the  old  prophets,  divinely  commissioned  to  go  about 
his  new  work.  There  is  something  about  the  opening 
sentences  of  the  Declaration  which  makes  one  uncon¬ 
sciously  recall  that  oft  repeated  expression  of  the  Old 
Testament  “and  the  word  of  the  Lord  came”  to  this 
or  the  other  prophet.  No  doubt  Mr.  Campbell  wrould 
have  been  the  last  man  to  assert  any  inspiration  of  this 
character  as  characterizing  his  own  activities.  Never¬ 
theless,  the  prophetic  note  clings  to  his  words  and  his¬ 
tory  will  afford  him  a  place  among  the  latter  day 
prophets  in  the  annals  of  the  church. 

Not  only  does  the  Declaration  assert  the  essentially 
Protestant  principle  of  the  right  of  private  judgment, 
but  it  also  emphasizes  what  has  been  called  the  formal 
principle  of  the  Reformation ;  that  is,  the  supreme 
authority  of  the  Scriptures.  Campbell  was  a  disciple  of 
Chillingworth  in  that  he  asserted  that  the  Bible  and 
the  Bible  alone  is  the  religion  of  Protestantism.  The 
Bible,  interpreted  freely  in  accordance  with  the  individ¬ 
ual  or  rational  conscience  and  judgment,  furnishes  the 
religious  standard  of  the  Declaration.  The  Bible  is 
authoritative  for  Thomas  Campbell  in  the  fullest  sense 
of  the  word,  but  he  will  not  be  bound  by  “any  human 
interpretation”  of  the  text.  Critics  of  Mr.  Campbell, 
at  this  point,  have  urged  that  his  one  principle  contra¬ 
dicts  the  other,  that  is  to  say  that  both  the  Scripture 
text  and  the  personal  judgment  of  the  individual  can¬ 
not  be  authoritative.  If  we  make  the  latter  supreme,  it 
reduces  the  other  to  unimportance  and  vice  versa.  This 
is  the  favorite  argument  of  what  are  sometimes  called 
the  “inner  consciousness  advocates.”  Their  position  is 
that  there  can  be  no  authority  beyond  individual  con¬ 
science  and  judgment  inasmuch  as  these  must  determine 
the  meaning  of  Scripture  and  therefore  possess  the 
ultimate  and  final  word.  It  is  quite  trivial,  they  say, 
to  speak  of  the  Bible  as  the  only  authority  when  by 
that  expression  you  mean  always  the  Bible  as  inter- 


42 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


preted  by  this  or  the  other  person.  Where  there  is  no 
common  standard  of  interpretation  there  is  no  common 
standard  of  authority.  To  talk,  therefore,  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  as  supreme,  and  private  judgment  as  also  supreme 
is  to  talk  nonsense.  The  Scriptures  are  authoritative 
only  as  you  and  I  interpret  them  for  ourselves,  and 
since  I  am  not  bound  by  your  interpretation  nor  are  you 
bound  by  mine  nor  either  of  us  by  any  other  man’s, 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  any  common  Scripture.  I  have 
a  Bible  and  you  have  a  Bible  and  the  other  man  has  a 
Bible  and  our  Bibles  are  all  different  because  they  are 
the  result  of  the  play  of  separate  intellectual  processes 
upon  the  text.  This  being  true,  we  must  either  give  up 
one  thing  or  the  other.  We  must  affirm  the  authority 
of  the  text  as  interpreted  by  some  definite  common  prin¬ 
ciple  (the  method  of  Roman  Catholicism)  or  we  must 
assert  the  right  of  private  judgment  as  absolute  and 
independent  of  any  other  consideration. 

We  have  stated  the  argument  against  Mr.  Campbell’s 
position  somewhat  in  detail  because  it  appears  to  be  a 
matter  of  perennial  importance.  Protestantism  has  in¬ 
deed  sought  to  escape  from  the  dilemma  in  various  ways. 
The  earliest  method  is  what  may  be  called  the  sym¬ 
bolical;  that  is,  the  attempt  to  unify  scriptural  interpre¬ 
tation  by  means  of  ereedal  documents.  The  period  of 
the  Reformation,  as  is  well  known,  was  the  great  creed¬ 
making  epoch  in  the  history  of  the  world.  The  reason 
for  this  universal  desire  to  write  creeds  on  the  part  of 
the  revolutionary  forces  of  Christendom  is  not  difficult 
to  find.  They  had  taken  the  Scriptures  as  their  only 
authority  in  opposition  to  the  Catholic  dogma  of  the 
supremacy  of  the  church.  In  addition  they  had  asserted 
the  primacy  of  the  right  of  private  judgment.  Both 
doctrines  made  excellent  shibboleths  but  displayed  a 
tendency,  as  we  have  seen,  to  contradict  each  other.  In 
order  to  reconcile  them,  the  Protestant  churches  re¬ 
sorted  with  new  enthusiasm  to  the  old  Greco-Christian 
panacea  of  formulating  a  creed.  This  creed  was  sup¬ 
posed  to  represent  the  consensus  of  the  private  judg- 


Introduction 


43 


ments,  concerning  the  essential  truths  of  Scripture,  of 
those  who  accepted  it.  Hence,  the  creed,  in  the  shape 
of  a  written  constitution  for  the  church,  took  the  place 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  dogma.  Theoretically  there  can 
be  no  question  but  that  the  Protestant  solution  was 
inferior  to  the  Catholic.  Crystallized  dogma,  in  the 
shape  of  a  static  and  absolutely  authoritative  creed,  is 
less  efficient  and  workable  than  the  ever  shifting  and 
adaptable  infallibility  of  the  Vatican.  The  latter  theory 
makes  provision  for  the  changing  content  of  the  age 
while  the  former  theory  does  not.  Hence  Catholicism, 
as  a  working  method,  has  a  superior  principle  of  author¬ 
ity  when  contrasted  with  the  Protestant  dogma  of  the 
Bible  as  interpreted  by  a  static  creed. 

Of  course  Protestantism  escaped  from  the  dilemma 
by  repudiating  in  practice  what  is  asserted  in  theory. 
Its  numerous  creeds  in  no  way  interfered  with  the  prac¬ 
tice  of  private  judgment  on  the  part  of  their  adherents. 
People  accepted  the  creed  and  interpreted  it  as  they 
pleased.  AVhat  therefore  was  intended  to  serve  as  a  uni¬ 
versal  method  of  interpretation  and  in  this  way  to 
guarantee  authority  to  the  text  of  Scripture  proved  to 
be  quite  worthless.  The  Scriptures  and  the  creed  alike 
were  interpreted  by  each  individual  to  suit  himself  and 
there  was  no  one  who  could  say  nav.  Hence,  the  net 
result  of  the  creedal  experiment  was  to  bring  thought¬ 
ful  Protestants  back  to  the  point  from  whence  they 
started,  that  is  the  absolute  authority  of  the  individual 
judgment  independent  of  any  external  consideration 
whatever. 

AVhat  solution  of  the  Protestant  enigma  are  we  to 
gather  from  the  platform  put  forth  by  Thomas  Camp¬ 
bell.  It  is  quite  obvious  that  he  rejects  in  toto  the 
creedal  method  which  he  saw  clearly  enough  had  been 
definitely  discredited  by  past  experience  and  history. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  is  a  thorough-going  Protestant 
and  certainly  manifests  no  sympathy  with  the  Roman 
Catholic  idea  of  centering  authority  in  the  Church. 


44 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


Still  further,  he  indicates  no  disposition  to  surrender 
either  private  judgment  or  the  authority  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures.  How,  then  does  he  reconcile  the  two?  The 
answer  to  this  question  lies  at  the  very  heart  of  the  re¬ 
ligious  movement  which  arose,  in  large  measure,  as  a 
result  of  his  teachings. 

The  first  consideration  which  it  is  necessary  to  keep 
in  mind  in  order  to  understand  the  doctrine  of  authority 
embodied  in  the  Declaration  and  Address  is  the  belief 
of  its  author  in  the  substantial  infallibility  of  what  may 
be  called  “the  common  mind. ”  Both  Thomas  and 
Alexander  Campbell  believed  in  a  universal  reason 
which  makes  possible  unity  of  thought  on  the  part  of 
individuals.  This  common  reason  or  common  mind, 
when  applied  to  the  Scriptures,  would  necessarily  yield 
the  same  interpretation  and  in  this  way  guarantee  unity 
of  thought  and  action.  Both  of  the  Campbells  rejected 
the  idea  that  any  individual  judgment  with  regard  to 
the  Scriptures  should  be  considered  authoritative,  but 
they  were  assured  that  the  judgment  of  the  common 
mind  or  the  universal  reason  could  not  be  mistaken. 
Hence  the  Scriptures,  interpreted  as  above  indicated, 
constituted  for  them  an  infallible  and  universal  author¬ 
ity. 

Doubtless  some  one  is  asking  at  this  point  how  the 
common  mind  is  to  be  detected,  and  what  guarantee 
we  can  have  in  any  given  case  that  our  individual  pri¬ 
vate  judgment  coincides  with  the  universal  reason.  Mr. 
Campbell  would  unquestionably  have  answered  the 
question  by  an  appeal  to  the  intellectual  majority. 
Whatever  the  great  bulk  of  thoughtful  men  agree  upon 
as  touching  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  doubtless 
an  expression  of  the  common  mind  upon  the  subject. 
Alexander  Campbell  was  rather  addicted  to  quoting  the 
expression  vox  populi  vox  dei  in  his  debates  and  public 
addresses.  What  he  meant  by  this  quotation  was  simply 
that  the  voice  of  human  intelligence  as  a  whole  ex- 


Introduction 


45 


presses  the  voice  of  universal  reason  and,  therefore, 
the  voice  of  God.  It  was  to  this  common  mind  that  the 
Campbells  always  made  their  appeal  with  regard  to  the 
various  theological  positions  which  they  occupied. 

IT  all  comes  back  to  this :  Reason  when  given  a  fair 
play  and  a  free  field,  is  from  God  and  expresses 
the  divine  nature,  if  not  in  the  highest,  certainly  in  one 
of  its  highest  forms.  Now  the  Scriptures  which  are 
God’s  word  given  to  man  by  direct  revelation  can  only 
be  interpreted  aright  by  the  divine  reason  which  is 
God’s  gift  to  man  for  guidance  in  all  the  varied  ac¬ 
tivities  of  life.  Of  course  this  divine  reason  in  some 
cases,  and  doubtless  to  a  certain  extent  in  all  cases,  is 
distorted  and  obscured  by  individual  passions  and  preju¬ 
dices.  Herein  lies  the  failure  of  anarchistic  private 
judgment  as  a  standard  of  truth.  The  individual  mind 
is  apt  to  be  circumscribed  and  hemmed  in  by  petty  and 
local  considerations  which  do  not  permit  the  universal 
reason  to  have  full  sway.  When  a  large  number  of 
minds  are  taken  into  account,  however,  the  petty  par¬ 
ticularities  of  the  individuals  who  constitute  the  larger 
group  drop  out  of  sight  or  negate  each  other  and  the 
conclusions  of  the  common  mind  stand  out  with  clear 
unanimity.  These  conclusions  are,  therefore,  the  voice 
of  the  universal  reason  and  represent  the  highest  stand¬ 
ard  of  accuracy  possible  for  man. 

That  the  above  analysis  correctly  interprets  the  Camp¬ 
bell’s  idea  of  authority  in  religion  is  abundantly  con¬ 
firmed  by  an  appeal  to  the  concrete  historical  facts  in 
their  experience.  For  example,  the  question  of  bap¬ 
tism  was  decided  by  them  entirely  upon  the  basis  of 
what  they  believed  to  be  the  verdict  of  the  common 
mind  in  the  matter.  Careful  study  of  the  subject  con¬ 
vinced  Alexander  Campbell,  and  later  his  father,  that 
the  overwhelming  consensus  of  the  thoughtful  scholar¬ 
ship  of  the  world  is  in  favor  of  the  idea  that  immersion 


46 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


was  the  New  Testament  form  of  baptism.  This  being 
the  case,  the  universal  reason  had  spoken  upon  the  sub¬ 
ject  and  there  was  nothing  to  do  but  to  accept  its  con¬ 
clusions.  It  was  not  because  Thomas  Campbell,  as  an 
individual,  or  Alexander,  as  an  individual,  reached  his 
own  separate  and  individual  conclusion  upon  the  mat¬ 
ter,  but  rather  because  they  saw  their  conclusions 
harmonizing  with  the  great  body  of  scholarship  of  the 
world  that  they  proclaimed  what  has  been  styled  the 
“immersion  dogma.”  It  was  only  because  they  felt 
that  the  universal  mind  had  spoken  at  this  point  that 
they  committed  themselves  so  unreservedly  to  the  posi¬ 
tion  in  question.  It  should  always  be  remembered  that 
there  is  not  today,  and  has  not  been  since  the  time  of  the 
Campbells,  any  real  dispute  on  the  part  of  the  world’s 
scholars  with  regard  to  the  above  question. 

What  is  true  of  baptism  is  true  of  every  other  point 
in  the  program  of  the  Campbells.  They  were  not  will¬ 
ing  to  stress  any  consideration  which  did  not  clearly 
have  the  voice  of  the  common  mind  behind  it.  They 
practiced  the  weekly  observance  of  the  Lord’s  Supper 
because  they  believed  that  New  Testament  precedent  was 
in  favor  of  it,  and  also  because  the  practice  was  of  great 
utility  in  holding  together  the  congregations,  especially 
when  they  were  weak  and  unable  to  secure  a  regular 
minister.  Inasmuch  as  the  common  mind  had  not 
spoken  upon  this  question  with  any  degree  of  definite¬ 
ness,  however,  they  did  not  make  it  in  any  respect  a 
“dogma.”  The  same  thing  was  true  of  the  congrega¬ 
tional  polity  which  they  adhered  to  as  preferable  to 
any  other,  though  not  as  absolutely  authoritative.  Upon 
the  question  of  human  creeds  their  position  was  the 
same.  The  common  mind,  as  represented  in  the  prac¬ 
tically  unanimous  voice  of  scholarship,  has  agreed  that 
a  simple  confession  of  faith  in  Christ  as  the  Messiah 
and  Redeemer  of  the  world  was  the  only  creed  known 


Introduction 


47 


to  the  New  Testament  era.  TIence  the  Campbells  re¬ 
jected  all  human  creeds. 

If  the  doctrine  of  the  universal  reason  is  accepted, 
there  is  no  reason  why  the  Scriptures,  as  interpreted 
by  this  principle,  should  not  be  regarded  as  the  ultimate 
authority  in  religion.  Such  a  viewpoint  means  some¬ 
thing  far  more  than  simply  the  assertion  of  the  infalli¬ 
bility  of  private  judgment.  It  rises  from  the  separate¬ 
ness  and  particularity  of  the  “inner  consciousness” 
theory  to  the  broad  field  of  prophetic  revelation  inter¬ 
preted  and  made  clear  from  age  to  age  by  the  ever 
living  and  universal  reason  which  guarantees  all  civil¬ 
ization  and  progress.  That  reason  itself  is  indeed  not 
the  last  word.  The  last  ivord  is  revelation  interpreted 
by  reason .  It  is  this  sort  of  interpretation  to  which 
Thomas  Campbell  makes  his  appeal  in  the  Declaration 
and  Address. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  emphasize  the  vital  connec¬ 
tion  which  the  above  theory  of  authority  involves  in 
dealing  with  the  matter  of  Christian  union.  The  Camp¬ 
bells,  while  fully  alive  to  both  the  folly  and  the  sin  of 
sectarianism,  as  so  many  pages  in  the  Declaration  and 
Address  bear  witness,  were  discriminating  enough  to 
see  the  uselessness  of  talking  about  Christian  union  with¬ 
out  proposing  any  definite  plan  for  such  union.  There 
is  not  the  slightest  scintilla  of  evidence  that  either  of 
them  was  ever  guilty  of  the  logical  fallacy  of  advocat¬ 
ing  an  end  without  at  least  suggesting  a  possible  means 
of  achieving  it.  The  supreme  merit  of  their  contribu¬ 
tion  to  the  Christian  union  problem  lies  precisely  in  the 
fact  that  they  furnished  a  definite  and  concrete  proposal 
by  which  unity  could  be  obtained.  Of  course,  they 
recognized  the  fact  that  the  only  hope  for  securing 
the  common  sentiment  which  is  indispensable  for  any 
real  unity  depends  upon  the  possession  of  the  common 
mind  by  Christians  of  all  groups  and  parties.  If  the 
scattered  partisans  of  Christendom  can  be  brought  to 


48 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


recognize  and  accept  the  dictates  of  the  universal 
reason,  there  is  no  adequate  ground  for  separatism.  Any 
sort  of  unity  which  does  not  involve  the  thinking  to¬ 
gether,  presupposed  in  the  possession  of  the  common 
reason,  the  Campbells  saw  was  hopeless.  With  patchwork 
compromises  in  matters  of  faith  or  lowest  common 
denominators  which  pare  down  truth  until  it  becomes 
invisible,  they  had  no  patience.  Religion  demands  not 
the  minimum  but  the  maximum  of  truth  made  avail¬ 
able  by  the  strenuous  application  of  the  divine  reason 
to  the  data  of  inspiration  furnished  in  the  Scriptures. 
When  people  think  together  in  the  broader  intellectual 
fellowship  of  the  universal  reason,  they  will  be  ready 
to  unite  effectively  in  all  the  varied  fields  of  Christian 
activity.  Until  this  intellectual  fellowship  can  be  se¬ 
cured,  it  is  useless  to  talk  about  Christian  union. 

The  Christian  world  at  large,  a  hundred  years  after 

the  time  of  Thomas  Campbell,  still  debates  the  problem 

of  church  unitv. 

%/ 

We  believe  that  if  the  Christian  forces  ever  get  to¬ 
gether,  it  will  be  upon  the  broad  lines  involved  in  the 
philosophical  background  of  the  Declaration  and  Address. 


PART  II 

THE  NECESSITY  FOR  CHRISTIAN 

UNION 


PART  II— THE  NECESSITY  FOR  CHRISTIAN 

UNION 


IN  the  analysis  of  the  Declaration  and  Address,  which 
we  are  now  following,  the  introductory  statement, 
styled  by  Thomas  Campbell  himself  the  “Declaration/’ 
may  be  considered  as  Part  One  of  the  completed  docu¬ 
ment.  This  section  we  have  already  outlined  and  dis¬ 
cussed  in  detail  .  We  come  now  to  Part  Two  which  may 
be  appropriately  entitled  “The  Necessity  for  Christian 
Union.”  This  division,  the  author  himself  styled  “The 
Address.”  In  the  edition  of  1809,  it  is  headed  as 
follows : 

Address 

To  all  that  love  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  sincerity,  throughout 
all  the  Churches,  the  following  Address  is  most  respectfully  sub¬ 
mitted. 

Dearly  Beloved  Brethren, 

The  “Dearly  Beloved  Brethren,”  above  referred  to, 
were  the  ministers  in  all  churches  and  especially  in  the 
Presbyterian  fold  to  whom  Thomas  Campbell  thought 
his  arguments  would  make  special  appeal.  The  author 
then  proceeds  with  his  main  argument : 

I.  TEXT  OF  THE  DECLARATION 

Love  and  Unity — The  Divine  Plan. — That  it  is  the  grand  de¬ 
sign  and  native  tendency  of  our  holy  religion  to  reconcile  and 
unite  men  to  God,  and  to  each  other,  in  truth  and  love,  to  the 
glory  of  God,  and  their  own  present  and  eternal  good,  will  not,  we 
presume,  be  denied,  by  any  of  the  genuine  subjects  of  Christianity. 
The  nativity  of  its  Divine  author  was  announced  from  heaven, 
by  a  host  of  angels,  with  high  acclamations  of  ‘ 1  Glory  to  God  in 
the  highest,  and  on  earth  peace  and  good-will  toward  men.  ’ '  The 
whole  tenor  of  that  Divine  book  which  contains  its  institutes,  in 
all  its  gracious  declarations,  precepts,  ordinances,  and  holy  ex- 

51 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


52 


amples,  most  expressively  and  powerfully  inculcates  this.  In  so 
far,  then,  as  this  holy  unity  and  unanimity  in  faith  and  love  is 
attained,  just  in  the  same  degree  is  the  glory  of  God  and  the 
happiness  of  men  promoted  and  secured. 

Impressed  with  those  sentiments,  and,  at  the  same  time,  griev¬ 
ously  affected  with  those  sad  divisions  which  have  so  awfully  in¬ 
terfered  with  the  benign  and  gracious  intention  of  our  holy  re¬ 
ligion,  by  exacting  its  professed  subjects  to  bite  and  devour  one 
another,  we  cannot  suppose  ourselves  justifiable  in  withholding  the 
mite  of  our  sincere  and  humble  endeavors  to  heal  and  remove 
them. 

Disastrous  Effects  of  Division. — What  awful  and  distressing  ef¬ 
fects  have  those  sad  divisions  produced!  what  aversions,  what  re¬ 
proaches,  what  backbitings,  what  evil  surmisings,  what  angry  con¬ 
tentions,  what  enmities,  what  excommunications,  and  even  persecu¬ 
tion  !  ! !  And,  indeed,  this  must,  in  some  measure,  continue  to  be 
the  case  so  long  as  those  schisms  exist;  for,  saith  the  apostle, 
where  envying  and  strife  is  there  is  confusion  and  every  evil  work. 

What  dreary  effects  of  those  accursed  divisions  are  to  be  seen, 
even  in  this  highly  favored  country,  where  the  sword  of  the  civil 
magistrate  has  not  as  yet  learned  to  serve  at  the  altar.  Have  we 
not  seen  congregations  broken  to  pieces,  neighborhoods  of  pro¬ 
fessing  Christians  first  thrown  into  confusion  by  party  contentions, 
and,  in  the  end,  entirely  deprived  of  Gospel  ordinances;  while,  in 
the  meantime,  large  settlements  and  tracts  of  country  remain  to 
this  day  entirely  destitute  of  a  Gospel  ministry,  many  of  them 
in  little  better  than  a  state  of  heathenism,  the  Churches  being 
either  so  weakened  with  divisions  that  they  cannot  send  them  min¬ 
isters,  or  the  people  so  divided  among  themselves  that  they  will 
not  receive  them?  Several,  at  the  same  time,  who  live  at  the  door 
of  a  preached  Gospel,  dare  not  in  conscience  go  to  hear  it,  and, 
of  course,  enjoy  little  more  advantage,  in  that  respect,  than  if 
living  in  the  midst  of  heathens.  How  seldom  do  many  in  those 
circumstances  enjoy  the  dispensation  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  that 
great  ordinance  of  unity  and  love.  How  sadly,  also,  does  this 
broken  and  confused  state  of  things  interfere  with  that  spiritual 
intercourse  among  Christians,  one  with  another,  which  is  so  es¬ 
sential  to  their  edification  and  comfort,  in  the  midst  of  a  present 
evil  world;  so  divided  in  sentiment,  and,  of  course,  living  at  such 
distances,  that  but  few  of  the  same  opinion,  or  party,  can  con¬ 
veniently  and  frequently  assemble  for  religious  purposes,  or  enjoy 
a  due  frequency  of  ministerial  attentions. 

And  even  where  things  are  in  a  better  state  with  respect  to 
settled  Churches,  how  is  the  tone  of  discipline  released  under  the 
influence  of  a  party  spirit ;  many  being  afraid  to  exercise  it  with 
due  strictness,  lest  their  people  should  leave  them,  and,  undeT  the 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


cloak  of  some  specious  pretense,  find  refuge  in  the  bosom  of  an¬ 
other  party;  while,  lamentable  to  be  told,  so  corrupted  is  the 
Church  with  those  accursed  divisions,  that  there  are  but  few  so 
base  as  not  to  find  admission  into  some  professing  party  or  other. 
Thus,  in  a  great  measure,  is  that  Scriptural  purity  of  commmunion 
banished  from  the  Church  of  God,  upon  the  due  preservation  of 
which  much  of  her  comfort,  glory,  and  usefulness  depend. 

To  complete  the  dread  result  of  our  wrneful  divisions,  one  evil 
yet  remains,  of  a  very  awful  nature:  the  Divine  displeasure  justly 
provoked  with  this  sad  perversion  of  the  Gospel  of  peace,  the 
Lord  withholds  his  gracious  influential  presence  from  his  ordi¬ 
nances,  and  not  unfrequently  gives  up  the  contentious  authors  and 
abettors  of  religious  discord  to  fall  into  grievous  scandals,  or 
visits  them  with  judgments,  as  he  did  the  house  of  Eli.  Thus, 
while  professing  Christians  bite  and  devour  one  another,  they  are 
consumed  one  of  another,  or  fall  a  prey  to  the  righteous  judg¬ 
ments  of  God;  meantime,  the  truly  religious  of  all  parties  are 
grieved,  the  weak  stumbled,  the  graceless  and  profane  hardened, 
the  mouths  of  infidels  opened  to  blaspheme  religion,  and  thus  the 
only  thing  under  Leaven  divinely  efficacious  to  promote  and  se¬ 
cure  the  present  spiritual  and  eternal  good  of  man,  even  the 
Gospel  of  the  blessed  Jesus,  is  reduced  to  contempt,  while  multi¬ 
tudes.  deprived  of  a  Gospel  ministry,  as  has  been  observed,  fall 
an  easy  prey  to  seducers,  and  so  become  the  dupes  of  almost  un¬ 
heard-of  delusions. 

Special  Responsibility  of  the  Church  in  America. — Are  not  such 
the  visible  effects  of  our  sad  divisions,  even  in  this  otherwise 
happy  country?  Say,  dear  brethren,  are  not  these  things  so?  Is 
it  not  then  your  incumbent  duty  to  endeavor,  by  all  scriptural 
means,  to  have  those  evils  remedied?  Who  will  say  that  it  is  not? 
And  does  it  not  peculiarly  belong  to  you,  who  occupy  the  place  of 
Gospel  ministers,  to  be  leaders  in  this  laudable  undertaking?  Much 
depends  upon  your  hearty  concurrence  and  zealous  endeavors.  The 
favorable  opportunity  which  Divine  Providence  has  put  into  your 
hands,  in  this  happy  country,  for  the  accomplishment  of  so  great 
a  good  is,  in  itself,  a  consideration  of  no  small  encouragement. 
A  country  happily  exempted  from  the  baneful  influence  of  a  civil 
establishment  of  any  peculiar  form  of  Christianity;  from  under 
the  direct  influence  of  the  anti-Christian  hierarchy;  and,  at  the 
same  time,  from  any  formal  connection  with  the  devoted  nations 
that  have  given  their  strength  and  power  unto  the  beast;  in  which, 
of  course,  no  adequate  reformation  can  be  accomplished,  until  the 
word  of  God  be  fulfilled,  and  the  vials  of  his  wrath  poured  out 
upon  them. 

Happy  exemption,  indeed,  from  being  the  object  of  such 
awful  judgments !  Still  more  happy  will  it  be  for  us  if  we  duly 


54 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


esteem  and  improve  those  great  advantages,  for  the  high  and  val¬ 
uable  ends  for  which  they  are  manifestly  given,  and  sure  where 
much  is  given  much  also  will  be  required.  Can  the  Lord  expect, 
or  require,  anything  less  from  a  people  in  such  unhampered  cir¬ 
cumstances — from  a  people  so  liberally  furnished  with  all  means 
and  mercies,  than  a  thorough  reformation  in  all  things,  civil  and 
religious,  according  to  his  word?  Why  should  we  suppose  it? 
And  would  not  such  an  improvement  of  out  precious  privileges  be 
equally  conducive  to  the  glory  of  God,  and  our  own  present  and 
everlasting  good? 

Grounds  for  Ilope  of  TJnion. — The  auspicious  phenomena  of  the 
times  furnish  collateral  arguments  of  a  very  encouraging  nature, 
that  our  dutiful  and  pious  endeavors  shall  not  be  in  vain  in  the 
Lord.  Is  it  not  the  day  of  the  Lord’s  vengeance  upon  the  anti- 
Christian  world — the  year  of  recompenses  for  the  controversy  of 
Zion?  Surely,  then,  the  time  to  favor  her  is  come;  even  the  set 
time.  And  is  it  not  said  that  Zion  shall  be  built  in  troublous  times? 
Have  not  greater  effors  been  made,  and  more  done,  for  the  promul¬ 
gation  of  the  Gospel  among  the  nations,  since  the  commencement 
of  the  French  revolution,  than  had  been  for  many  centuries  prior 
to  that  event?  And  have  not  the  churches,  both  in  Europe  and 
America,  since  that  period,  discovered  a  more  than  usual  concern 
for  the  removal  of  contentions,  for  the  healing  of  divisions,  for  the 
restoration  of  a  Christian  and  brotherly  intercourse  one  with  an¬ 
other,  and  for  the  promotion  of  each  other’s  spiritual  good,  as  the 
printed  documents  upon  these  subjects  amply  testify? 

Should  we  not,  then,  be  excited  by  these  considerations  to  con¬ 
cur  with  all  our  might  to  help  forward  this  good  work;  that  what 
yet  Temains  to  be  done,  may  be  fully  accomplished.  And  what 
though  the  well-meant  endeavors  after  union  have  not,  in  some  in¬ 
stances,  entirely  succeeded  to  the  wish  of  all  parties,  should  this 
dissuade  us  from  the  attempt!  Indeed,  should  Christians  cease  to 
contend  earnestly  for  the  sacred  articles  of  faith  and  duty  once 
delivered  to  the  saints,  on  account  of  the  opposition  and  scanty  suc¬ 
cess  which,  in  many  instances,  attend  their  faithful  and  honest  en¬ 
deavors;  the  Divine  cause  of  truth  and  righteousness  might  have 
long  ago  been  relinquished.  And  is  there  anything  more  formi¬ 
dable  in  the  Goliah  schism,  than  in  many  other  evils  which  Christians 
have  to  combat?  Or,  has  the  Captain  of  Salvation  sounded  a  desist 
from  pursuing,  or  proclaimed  a  truce  with  this  deadly  enemy  that 
is  sheathing  its  sword  in  the  very  bowels  of  his  church,  rending  and 
mangling  his  mystical  body  into  pieces?  Has  he  said  to  his  serv¬ 
ants,  Let  it  alone?  If  not,  ■where  is  the  warrant  for  a  cessation  of 
endeavors  to  have  it  removed?  On  the  other  hand  are  we  not  better 
instructed  by  sage  experience,  how  to  proceed  in  this  business,  hav¬ 
ing  before  our  eyes  the  inadvertencies  and  mistakes  of  others,  which 
have  hitherto,  in  many  instances,  prevented  the  desired  success? 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


55 


Thus  taught  by  experience,  and  happily  furnished  with  the  ac¬ 
cumulated  instructions  of  those  that  have  gone  before  us,  earnesPy 
laboring  in  this  good  cause,  let  us  take  unto  ourselves  the  whole 
armor  of  God,  and,  having  our  feet  shod  with  the  preparation  of 
the  Gospel  of  peace,  let  us  stand  fast  by  this  important  duty  with 
all  perseverance.  Let  none  that  love  the  peace  of  Zion  be  discour¬ 
aged,  much  less  offended,  because  that  an  object  of  such  magni¬ 
tude  does  not,  in  the  first  instance,  come  forth  recommended  by  the 
express  suffrage  of  the  mighty  or  the  many.  This  consideration,  if 
duly  weighed,  will  neither  give  offense,  nor  yield  discouragement 
to  any  one  that  considers  the  nature  of  the  thing  in  question  in 
connection  with  what  has  been  already  suggested.  Is  it  not  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  universal  right,  a  duty  equally  belonging  to  every  citizen 
of  Zion,  to  seek  her  good?  In  this  respect,  no  one  can  claim  a  pref¬ 
erence  above  his  fellows,  as  to  any  peculiar,  much  less  exclusive  ob¬ 
ligations. 

And,  as  for  authority,  it  can  have  no  place  in  this  business;  for, 
surely,  none  can  suppose  themselves  invested  with  a  Divine  right, 
as  to  anything  peculiarly  belonging  to  them,  to  call  the  attention 
of  their  brethren  to  this  dutiful  and  important  undertaking.  For 
our  paid,  we  entertain  no  such  arrogant  presumption ;  nor  are  wo 
inclined  to  impute  the  thought  to  any  of  our  brethren,  that  this 
good  work  should  be  let  alone  till  such  time  as  they  may  think 
proper  to  come  forward  and  sanction  the  attempt,  by  their  invita¬ 
tion  and  example.  It  is  an  open  field,  an  extensive  work,  to  which 
all  are  equally  welcome,  equally  invited. 

Should  we  speak  of  competency,  viewing  the  greatness  of  the 
object,  and  the  manifold  difficulties  which  lie  in  the  way  of  its 
accomplishment;  we  would  readily  exclaim,  with  the  apostle,  Who 
is  sufficient  for  these  things?  But,  upon  recollecting  ourselves, 
neither  would  we  be  discouraged ;  persuaded  with  him,  that,  as  the 
work  in  which  we  are  engaged,  so,  likewise,  our  sufficiency  is  of 
God.  But,  after  all,  both  the  mighty  and  the  many  are  with  us. 
The  Lord  himself,  and  all  that  are  truly  his  people,  are  declaredly 
on  our  side.  The  prayers  of  all  the  churches,  nay,  the  prayers  of 
Christ  himself  (John  17:20,  23),  and  of  all  that  have  ascended  to 
his  heavenly  kingdom,  are  with  us.  The  blessing  out  of  Zion  is 
pronounced  upon  our  undertaking.  “Pray  for  the  Peace  of  Jerusa¬ 
lem;  they  shall  prosper  that  love  Thee.  ”  With  such  encourage¬ 
ments  as  these,  what  should  deter  us  from  the  heavenly  enterprise, 
or  render  hopeless  the  attempt  of  accomplishing,  in  due  time,  an 
entire  union  of  all  the  churches  in  faith  and  practice,  according  to 
the  Word  of  God?  Not  that  we  judge  ourselves  competent  to 
effect  such  a  thing;  we  utterly  disclaim  the  thought;  but  we 
judge  it  our  bounden  duty  to  make  the  attempt,  by  using  all  due 
means  in  our  power  to  promote  it;  and  also,  that  we  have  suffi¬ 
cient  Teason  to  rest  assured  that  our  humble  and  well-meant  en¬ 
deavors  shall  not  be  in  vain  in  the  Lord. 


56 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


II.  COMMENT  UPON  THE  TEXT 

WE  now  begin  the  central  portion  of  Thomas 
Campbell’s  argument.  The  “Declaration,”  as 
he  styled  it,  was  intended  solely  for  introductory  pur¬ 
poses  and  by  way  of  apology  for  the  main  thesis.  The 
author  then  turns  to  the  full  statement  of  his  position 
and  advances  all  of  the  arguments  which  he  deems  nec¬ 
essary  to  support  his  new  departure. 

The  first  point  which  he  makes  is  that  unity  with  God 
and  fellowship  with  each  other  is  the  “grand  design” 
and  “native  tendency”  of  the  Christian  religion.  There 
can  be  no  question  but  that  in  this  central  proposition 
he  strikes  the  highest  possible  level.  Unity  and  love  are 
the  cardinal  characteristics  of  the  Gospel  and  when  the 
Church  fails  to  manifest  them  it  proves  recreant  to  its 
supreme  trust.  This  fact  is  often  forgotten  in  our  con¬ 
sideration  of  the  problem  of  Christian  union.  We  are 
apt  to  be  very  conscientious  with  regard  to  subsidiary 
and  subordinate  items  of  the  faith  and  not  at  all  consci¬ 
entious  about  the  sin  of  schism  which  touches  the  very 
heart  of  our  religion.  Thomas  Campbell  is  on  sure 
ground  in  his  emphasis  upon  the  supreme  place  of  unity 
in  the  scheme  of  redemption. 

Perhaps  nowhere  else  in  irenical  literature  do  we  find 
such  a  vivid  impeachment  of  the  exceeding  sinfulness  of 
sectarianism  as  is  presented  in  the  opening  sections  of 
the  Declaration  and  Address.  Even  a  treble  exclamation 
point  cannot  satisfy  the  author  in  his  desire  to  make 
clear  the  evils  of  division.  One  feels  as  he  reads  his 
words  that  the  experience  of  Mr.  Campbell  must  have 
been  of  such  a  character  as  to  influence  him  most  pro¬ 
foundly.  There  is  nothing  academic  or  theoretical  about 
the  language  which  he  uses.  He  cites  particular  cases, 
“large  tracts  of  country  entirely  destitute  of  a  gospel 
ministry,”  “Churches  so  weakened”  that  they  cannot 
send  out  missionaries  and  the  laity  so  divided  that  they 
“will  not  receive”  those  who  by  chance  may  come  to 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


57 


them.  Special  reference  is  made  to  the  Lord’s  Supper, 
which  is  characterized  as  pre-eminently  the  ordinance 
which  symbolizes  the  unity  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 
Thomas  Campbell  was  not  a  sacramentarian  and  his 
special  stress  upon  the  encharist  must  be  understood  as 
due  to  a  simple  desire  to  give  the  sacrament  its  rightful 
place  in  the  scheme  of  formal  religion. 

It  is  the  moral  aspect  of  disunion  which  impresses  the 
author  of  the  Declaration  ancl  Address  most  profoundly. 
There  are  “grievous  scandals, ”  “visitations  of  judg¬ 
ment,”  “the  weak  are  caused  to  stumble,”  the  graceless 
and  profane  “are  hardened,”  “the  mouths  of  infidels 
opened  to  blaspheme  religion,”  and  the  gospel  of  Jesus 
is  “reduced  to  contempt.”  Those  who  have  had  access 
to  the  early  history  of  America  at  the  beginning  of  the 
nineteenth  century  will  readily  understand  that  these 
are  not  exaggerated  statements.  Because  of  its  sec¬ 
tarian  divisions,  the  Church  was  becoming  more  and 
more  enfeebled  and  unable  to  cope  with  the  moral  evils 
of  the  time.  Following  the  War  of  Independence,  a 
flood  of  skepticism  swept  over  the  country  and  brought 
with  it  a  marked  deterioration  in  the  public  morals. 
This  period  of  moral  and  religious  decline  had  reached 
its  lowest  level  shortly  before  Mr.  Campbell  came  to 
America.  The  condition  of  the  Church  pictured  in  the 
opening  pages  of  the  Declaration  ancl  Address  is  strik¬ 
ingly  true  of  the  facts  narrated  in  the  history  of  the 
time. 

While  there  is  little  direct  reference  to  the  subject, 
there  can  be  no  question  but  that  Thomas  Campbell  in¬ 
tended  to  give  a  distinctly  premillenarian  color  to  his 
appeal  for  Christian  union.  It  is  obvious  that  he  does 
not  accept  the  idea  that  things  are  to  get  worse  until 
the  end,  for  if  this  had  been  his  view  he  would  not  have 
sent  forth  the  Declaration  and  Address  upon  its  mission 
of  reconciliation.  At  the  same  time  he  appears,  quite 
clearly  to  have  identified  the  events  of  current  history 
with  the  predictions  of  the  Apocalypse.  The  Declara - 


58 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


tion  and  Address,  it  will  be  recalled,,  dates  from  the  year 
1809.  This  was  the  time  when  Napoleon’s  power  was  at 
its  height.  He  had  become  emperor  in  1804,  had  over¬ 
thrown  the  Austrians  and  Russians  at  Austerlitz  in  1805 
and  had  completely  crushed  Prussia  at  Jena  in  1806.  In 
1807  the  treaty  of  Tilset,  which  probably  marked  the 
highest  point  in  his  career  was  signed.  The  few  years 
which  followed  saw  Napoleon  the  undisputed  lord  of 
Europe.  Intensely  hated  as  he  was  by  the  peoples  of 
other  nations  and  especially  by  the  English,  the  French 
emperor,  in  the  eyes  of  many  devout  Christians,.  wTas 
clearly  identified  with  the  Beast  spoken  of  in  the  book 
of  Revelation.  This  is  undoubtedly  the  meaning  of  the 
reference  which  Mr.  Campbell  makes  in  his  argument  to 
“the  devoted  nations  that  have  given  their  strength  and 
power  unto  the  Beast.”  Evidently  he  looked  for  still 
greater  convulsions  on  the  continent  in  accordance  with 
the  word  of  the  prophecy.  “No  adequate  reformation 
can  be  accomplished,”  he  says,  “until  the  word  of  God 
be  fulfilled  and  the  vials  of  his  wrath  poured  out  upon 
them”  (the  nations). 

Along  with  this  somewhat  pessimistic  interpretation 
of  history,  there  is  a  striking  note  of  optimism  in  the 
emphasis  upon  the  possibilities  of  a  rebirth  of  Christi¬ 
anity  in  the  new  world.  Here  there  is  no  union  of 
•/ 

Church  and  State  such  as  hampered  religious  freedom 
abroad,  nor  is  there  any  entangling  alliance  with  for¬ 
eign  nations  which  would  be  calculated  to  plunge  the 
country  into  the  maelstrom  of  old  world  politics. 
Thomas  Campbell  sees  in  all  of  these  things  an  oppor¬ 
tunity  for  a  restoration  of  essential  Christianity  and  for 
getting  rid  of  the  sectarian  divisions  which  had  become 
hopelessly  crystallized  across  the  seas.  He  seems  to 
have  dreamed  of  a  united  church  here  in  America  in 
much  the  same  way  that  certain  Christian  leaders  in  the 
Orient  are  dreaming  of  a  united  Christian  church  in 
China  at  the  present  time.  He  is  not  blind  to  the  diffi¬ 
culties  in  the  way  but  he  feels  that  his  cause  is  just  and 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


59 


that  there  can  be  no  excuse  for  hesitancy  on  his  part  in 
the  matter  of  proclaiming  it.  There  is  a  note  of  pro¬ 
found  humility  in  his  reference  to  his  own  “sufficiency ” 
for  the  task  which  lies  before  him.  “He  utterly  dis¬ 
claims  the  thought5'  that  he  is  competent  to  effect  the 
union  of  the  churches  in  faith  and  practice.  Neverthe¬ 
less  he  judges  it  to  be  his  “bounden  duty”  to  make  the 
attempt,  being  assured  that  his  humble  endeavors  will 
not  be  in  vain  in  the  Lord. 

III.  TEXT  OF  THE  DECLARATION 

Christian  Union,  the  Common  Cause  for  All  Christians. — The 
cause  that  we  advocate  is  not  our  own  peculiar  cause,  nor  the 
cause  of  any  party,  considered  as  such;  it  is  a  common  cause, 
the  cause  of  Christ  and  our  brethren  of  all  denominations.  All 
that  we  presume,  then,  is  to  do  what  we  humbly  conceive  to  be 
our  duty,  in  connection  with  our  brethren;  to  each  of  whom  it 
equally  belongs,  as  to  us,  to  exert  himself  for  this  blessed  pur¬ 
pose.  And  as  we  have  no  just  reason  to  doubt  the  concurrence 
of  our  brethren  to  accomplish  an  object  so  desirable  in  itself, 
and  fraught  with  such  happy  consequences,  so  neither  can  we 
look  forward  to  that  happy  event  which  will  forever  put  an  end 
to  our  hapless  divisions,  and  restore  to  the  Church  its  primitive 
unity,  purity,  and  prosperity,  but  in  the  pleasing  prospect  of 
their  hearty  and  dutiful  concurrence. 

The  New  Testament  Church,  the  Basis  of  Union. — Dearly 
beloved  brethren,  why  should  we  deem  it  a  thing  incredible  that 
the  Church  of  Christ,  in  this  highly  favored  country,  should 
resume  that  original  unity,  peace,  and  purity  which  belong  to 
its  constitution,  and  constitute  its  glory?  Or,  is  there  anything 
that  can  be  justly  deemed  necessary  for  this  desirable  purpose, 
but  to  conform  to  the  model  and  adopt  the  practice  of  the 
primitive  Church,  expressly  exhibited  in  the  New  Testament? 
Whatever  alterations  this  might  produce  in  any  or  in  all  of 
the  Churches,  should,  we  think,  neither  be  deemed  inadmissible 
nor  ineligible.  Surely  such  alteration  would  be  every  way  for 
the  better,  and  not  for  the  worse,  unless  we  should  suppose 
the  divinely  inspired  rule  to  be  faulty,  or  defective.  Were  we, 
then,  in  our  Church  constitution  and  managements,  to  exhibit  a 
complete  conformity  to  the  apostolic  Church,  would  we  not 
be,  in  that  respect,  as  perfect  as  Christ  intended  we  should  be? 
And  should  not  this  suffice  us? 

Christians  Separated  by  Non-essentials. — It  is,  to  us,  a  pleas¬ 
ing  consideration  that  all  the  Churches  of  Christ  which  mutually 


60 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


acknowledge  each  other  as  such,  are  not  only  agreed  in  the 
great  doctrines  of  faith  and  holiness,  but  are  also  materially 
agreed  as  to  the  positive  ordinances  of  the  Gospel  institution; 
so  that  our  differences  at  most,  are  about  the  things  in  which 
the  kingdom  of  God  does  not  consist,  that  is,  about  matters  of 
private  opinion  or  human  invention.  What  a  pity  that  the 
kingdom  of  God  should  be  divided  about  such  things!  Who, 

then,  would  not  be  the  first  among  us  to  give  up  human  in¬ 

ventions  in  the  worship  of  God,  and  to  cease  from  imposing  his 
private  opinions  upon  his  brethren,  that  our  breaches  might 
thus  be  healed?  Who  would  not  willingly  conform  to  the 
original  pattern  laid  down  in  the  New  Testament,  for  this 

happy  purpose?  Our  dear  brethren  of  all  denominations  will 

consider  that  we  have  our  educational  prejudices  and  particular 
customs  to  struggle  against  as  well  as  they.  But  this  we  do 
sincerely  declare,  that  there  is  nothing  we  have  hitherto  re¬ 
ceived  as  matter  of  faith  or  practice  which  is  not  expressly 
taught  and  enjoined  in  the  word  of  God,  either  in  express  terms 
or  approved  precedent,  that  we  would  not  heartily  relinquish 
that  so  we  might  return  to  the  original  constitutional  unity  of 
the  Christian  Church;  and,  in  this  happy  unity,  enjoy  full  com¬ 
munion  with  all  our  brethren,  in  peace  and  charity.  The  like 
dutiful  condescension  we  candidly  expect  of  all  that  are  seriously 
impressed  with  a  sense  of  the  duty  they  owe  to  God,  to  each 
other,  and  to  their  perishing  brethren  of  mankind.  To  this  we 
call  we  invite,  our  brethren  of  all  denominations,  by  all  the 
sacred  motives  which  we  have  avouched  as  the  impulsive  reasons 
of  our  thus  addressing  them. 

Christian  Union  at  its  Lowest  Terms. — You  are  all,  dear 
brethren,  equally  included  as  the  objects  of  our  love  and  es¬ 
teem.  With  you  all  we  desire  to  unite  in  the  bonds  of  an  en¬ 
tire  Christian  unity — Christ  alone  being  the  head,  the  center, 
his  word  the  rule,  an  explicit  belief  of,  and  manifest  conformity 
to  it,  in  all  things — the  terms.  More  than  this,  you  will  not  re¬ 
quire  of  us;  and  less  we  cannot  require  of  you;  nor,  indeed,  can 
we  reasonably  suppose  any  would  desire  it,  for  what  good  pur¬ 
pose  would  it  serve?  We  dare  neither  assume  nor  propose  the 
trite,  indefinite  distinction  between  essentials  and  non-essentials,  in 
matters  of  revealed  truth  and  duty;  firmly  persuaded,  that, 
whatever  may  be  their  comparative  importance,  simply  con¬ 
sidered,  the  high  obligation  of  the  Divine  authority  revealing, 
or  enjoining  them,  renders  the  belief  or  performance  of  them 
absolutely  essential  to  us,  in  so  far  as  we  know  them.  And 
to  be  ignorant  of  anything  God  has  revealed,  can  neither  be 
our  duty  nor  our  privilege.  We  humbly  presume,  then,  dear 
brethren,  you  can  have  no  relevant  objection  to  meet  us  upon 
this  ground.  And,  we  again  beseech  you,  let  it  be  known  that 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


61 


it  is  the  invitation  of  but  few ;  bv  your  accession  we  shall  be 
many;  and  whether  few,  or  many,  in  the  first  instance,  it  is 
all  one  with  respect  to  the  event  which  must  ultimately  await 
the  full  information  and  hearty  concurrence  of  all.  Besides, 
whatever  is  to  be  done,  must  begin,  some  time,  some  where; 
and  no  matter  where,  nor  by  whom,  if  the  Lord  puts  his  hand  to 
the  work,  it  must  surely  prosper.  And  has  he  not  been  gra¬ 
ciously  pleased,  upon  many  signal  occasions,  to  bring  to  pass 
the  greatest  events  from  very  small  beginnings,  and  even  by 
means  the  most  unlikely.  Duty  then  is  ours;  but  events  be¬ 
long  to  God. 

Christian  Union,  Reasonable  and  Timely. — We  hope,  then, 
what  we  urge  wull  neither  be  deemed  an  unreasonable  nor  an 
unseasonable  undertaking.  Why  should  it  be  thought  unseason¬ 
able?  Can  any  time  be  assigned,  while  things  continue  as  they 
are,  that  would  prove  more  favorable  for  such  an  attempt,  or 
what  could  be  supposed  to  make  it  so?  Might  it  be  the  ap¬ 
proximation  of  parties  to  a  greater  nearness,  in  point  of  public 
profession  and  similarity  of  customs?  Or  might  it  be  expected 
from  a  gradual  decline  of  bigotry?  As  to  the  former  it  is  a 
well-known  fact,  that  where  the  difference  is  least,  the  opposi¬ 
tion  is  always  managed  with  a  degree  of  vehemence  inversely 
proportioned  to  the  merits  of  the  cause.  With  respect  to  the 
latter,  though,  we  are  happy  to  say,  that  in  some  cases  and 
places,  and,  we  hope,  universally,  bigotry  is  upon  the  decline; 
yet  we  are  not  warranted,  either  by  the  past  or  present,  to  act 
upon  that  supposition.  We  have,  as  yet,  by  this  means  seen 
no  such  effect  produced;  nor  indeed  could  we  reasonably  ex¬ 
pect  it;  for  there  will  always  be  multitudes  of  w~eak  persons  in 
the  Church,  and  these  are  generally  most  subject  to  bigotry;  add 
to  this,  that  while  divisions  exist,  there  will  always  be  found  in¬ 
terested  men  who  will  not  fail  to  support  them;  nor  can  we 
at  all  suppose  that  Satan  will  be  idle  to  improve  an  advantage 
so  important  to  the  interests  of  his  kingdom.  And,  let  it  be 
further  observed  upon  the  whole,  that,  in  matters  of  similar 
importance  to  our  secular  interests,  we  would  by  no  means  con¬ 
tent  ourselves  with  such  kind  of  reasoning. 

We  might  further  add,  that  the  attempt  here  suggested  not 
being  of  a  partial,  but  of  general  nature,  it  can  have  no  just 
tendency  to  excite  the  jealousy,  or  hurt  the  feelings  of  any 
party.  On  the  contrary,  every  effort  toward  a  permanent  Scrip¬ 
tural  unity  among  the  Churches,  upon  the  solid  basis  of  uni- 
versallv  acknowledged  and  self-evident  truths,  must  have  the 
happiest  tendency  to  enlighten  and  conciliate,  by  thus  manifest¬ 
ing  to  each  other  their  mutual  charity  and  zeal  for  the  truth: 
“Whom  I  love  in  the  truth,’’  saith  the  apostle,  “and  not  I 
only,  but  also  all  they  that  have  known  the  truth;  for  the  truth’s 


62 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


sake,  which  is  in  us,  and  shall  be  with  us  forever.  ”  Indeed, 
if  no  such  Divine  and  adequate  basis  of  union  can  be  fairly 
exhibited  as  will  meet  the  approbation  of  every  upright  and  in¬ 
telligent  Christian,  nor  such  mode  of  procedure  adopted  in  favor 
of  the  weak  as  will  not  oppress  their  consciences,  then  the  ac¬ 
complishment  of  this  grand  object  upon  principle  must  be  for¬ 
ever  impossible.  There  would,  upon  this  supposition,  remain  no 
other  way  of  accomplishing  it,  but  merely  by  voluntary  com¬ 
promise,  and  good-natured  accommodation.  That  such  a  thing, 
however,  will  be  accomplished,  one  way  or  other,  will  not  be 
questioned  by  any  that  allow  themselves  to  believe  that  the 
commands  and  prayers  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  will  not  ut¬ 
terly  prove  ineffectual. 

Whatever  way,  then,  it  is  to  be  effected,  whether  upon  the 
solid  basis  of  Divinely  revealed  truth,  or  the  good-natured  prin¬ 
ciple  of  Christian  forbearance  and  gracious  condescension,  is 
ir  not  equally  practicable,  equally  eligible  to  us,  as  ever  it  can 
be  to  any;  unless  we  should  suppose  ourselves  destitute  of  that 
Christian  temper  and  discernment  which  is  essentially  necessary 
to  qualify  us  to  do  the  will  of  our  gracious  Redeemer,  whose  express 
command  to  his  people  is,  that  there  be  “no  divisions  among 
them;  but  that  they  all  walk  by  the  same  rule,  speak  the  same 
thing,  and  be  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same  mind,  and 
in  the  same  judgment?’ ’  We  believe  then  it  is  as  practicable  as 
it  is  eligible.  Let  us  attempt  it.  “Up,  and  be  doing,  and  the 
Lord  will  be  with  us.” 

IV.  COMMENT  UPON  THE  DECLARATION 

THOMAS  CAMPBELL  was  oppressed  with  the  feeling 
that  the  movement  which  the  Declaration  and  Address 
inaugurated  might  be  regarded  as  a  particular  hobby  of 
his  own,  or  as  something  which  did  not  involve  Christians 
of  all  groups  and  classes.  He  therefore,  takes  great  care 
to  enunciate  the  universality  of  his  plea  for  Christian 
union  and  again  and  again  disclaims  any  desire  to  assume 
leadership  in  the  work  of  reunion.  He  wishes  it  to  be 
thoroughly  understood  that  he  is  not  seeking  prominence 
or  glory  of  any  kind,  but  that  he  is  simply  trying  to  dis¬ 
charge,  on  his  own  score,  an  obligation  which  rests 
equally  upon  every  other  Christian.  Few  religious  re¬ 
formers  have  been  more  humble  than  was  the  author  of 
the  Declaration  and  Address.  Although  absolutely  fear- 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


63 


less  and  courageous  in  the  discharge  of  duty,  he  was  self- 
effacing  and  possessed  the  New  Testament  spirit  of  meek¬ 
ness  to  an  extraordinary  degree. 

Mr.  Campbell  refers  frequently  in  this  section  of  the 
Declaration  to  “our  brethren  of  all  denominations.” 
This  oft  repeated  phrase  should  be  sufficient  answer  to 
the  accusation,  sometimes  made,  that  the  Campbells  did 
not  regard  the  members  of  denominational  churches  as 
Christians  and  brethren.  Nothing  could  be  more  foreign 
to  the  whole  spirit  of  the  Declaration  and  Address  than 
such  a  statement.  There  is  no  assumption  of  superiority, 
no  “ holier  than  thou”  attitude  anywhere  in  the  docu¬ 
ment.  The  author  recognizes  the  essential  Christianity 
of  all  the  followers  of  Jesus  and  desires  to  unite  them 
that  this  Christianity  may  have  full  expression  for  the  re¬ 
demption  of  the  world.  The  idea  that  the  members  of 
denominational  churches  are  not  Christians  is  exactly  con¬ 
tradictory  to  the  whole  thesis  of  Thomas  Campbell.  His 
fundamental  presupposition  is  that  they  are  Christians 
and  because  they  are  Christians  they  ought  to  be  together. 
If  he  had  not  regarded  them  as  Christians,  he  would  not 
have  been  interested  in  seeing  them  united.  No  Church 
in  Christendom  gives  more  complete  and  adequate  expres¬ 
sion  to  its  belief  in  the  catholicity  of  Christianity  than 
the  churches  belonging  to  the  religious  movement  inau¬ 
gurated  by  the  Campbells. 

It  is  true  that  the  Disciples  of  Christ,  from  the  begin¬ 
ning,  have  always  opposed  the  sectarian  ideal  and  have 
insisted  that  denominationalism,  both  in  theory  and  prac¬ 
tice,  is  wrong.  They  have  never,  however,  disputed  the 
essential  Christianity  of  those  who  still  adhere  to  the  de¬ 
nominational  order.  They  believe  that  these  brethren 
are  Christians  in  spite  of  denominationalism  and  not  be¬ 
cause  of  it. 

Doubtless  some  one  is  ready  to  remark,  at  this  point, 
that  the  Disciple  practice  of  requiring  immersion  of  all 
who  become  members  of  their  churches  is  not  in  harmony 


64 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


with  their  theoretical  attitude  toward  other  Christians. 
Such  an  impression  is  due  to  a  failure  to  understand  the 
genius  of  their  position.  That  position  involves  the  pres¬ 
entation  to  the  world  of  an  ideal  platform  for  Christian 
union.  If  this  platform  is  to  be  worth  anything  at  all, 
it  must  be  faithfully  followed.  To  make  exceptions  or 
to  deviate  from  the  ideal  would  inevitably  destroy  the 
whole  plea  for  which  they  stand.  That  plea  includes 
among  other  things  the  practice  of  a  catholic  ideal  of 
baptism.  Now  it  is  conceded  with  substantial  unanimity 
that  immersion  was  not  only  the  form  of  baptism  which 
is  portrayed  in  the  New  Testament  and  which  prevailed 
in  the  Apostolic  era,  but  it  is  also  the  only  form  of  bap¬ 
tism  which  is  universally  accepted  as  valid  by  Christians 
of  all  groups  and  classes. 

It  is  through  no  desire  to  impeach  the  essential  Chris¬ 
tianity  of  those  who  have  not  been  immersed,  nor  is  it 
through  any  assumption  of  superiority  on  their  own  part 
that  the  Disciples  of  Christ  adhere  to  the  uniform  prac¬ 
tice  of  immersion  as  the  form  of  baptism.  It  is  simply 
because  they  feel  assured  that  to  destroy  the  ideality  of 
their  plea  in  any  particular  could  only  mean  in  the  end 
the  destruction  of  their  program  for  Christian  union.  It 
is  quite  true  that  the  anomalous  situation  which  results 
from  loyalty  to  their  principles  is  at  times  unfortunate 
and  embarrassing.  So  long,  however,  as  sectarianism  pre¬ 
vails  in  the  world,  Christians  can  scarcely  hope  to  avoid 
embarrassment.  The  way  to  escape  from  such  unfor¬ 
tunate  and  unpleasant  conditions,  is  not  by  compromise 
or  by  deflection  from  principle,  but  only  by  the  ultimate 
and  complete  abolition  of  the  sectarian  order. 

The  basis  of  union  which  is  indicated  throughout  the 
Declaration  and  Address  in  no  wise  differs  from  the  plea 
which  the  followers  of  Thomas  Campbell  still  present  to 
the  Christian  world.  In  the  language  of  the  Declaration , 
the  original  unity,  peace  and  purity  of  the  Church  of 
Christ  can  be  secured  only  by  conformity  to  the  model 
and  the  adoption  of  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


65 


as  expressly  exhibited  in  the  New  Testament.  Any  altera¬ 
tions  which  might  be  produced  in  the  churches  by  con¬ 
formity  to  this  program,  the  author  thinks  should 
“neither  be  deemed  inadmissible  nor  ineligible,”  and  he 
adds  by  way  of  supporting  his  position  that  whatever 
alterations  might  have  to  be  made  would  be  in  every  way 
for  the  better,  and  not  for  the  worse,  “unless  ive  should 
suppose  the  divinely  inspired  rule  to  he  faulty  or  defec¬ 
tive.”  So  sure  is  Thomas  Campbell  that  the  Restoration 
of  the  New  Testament  Church  and  of  the  Apostolic  order 
in  general  will  solve  the  problem  of  union  that  he  adds : 
“Were  we,  then,  in  our  Church  constitution  and  manage¬ 
ments,  to  exhibit  a  complete  conformity  to  the  Apostolic 
church,  would  we  not  be  in  that  respect,  as  perfect  as 
Christ  intended  we  should  be  ?  And  should  not  this  suf¬ 
fice  us?” 

It  has  been  asserted  at  times  that  the  elder  Campbell 
did  not  advocate  the  basis  for  unity  which  was  later  ad¬ 
vocated  by  his  son  and  by  the  vast  majority  of  those  who 
have  adhered  to  the  program  of  the  Disciples.  Thomas 
Campbell,  it  is  said,  believed  in  Christian  union  but  was 
not  especially  interested  in  the  restoration  of  the  New 
Testament  Church.  It  was  Alexander  who  laid  special 
stress  upon  the  restoration  program  and  thus  deflected 
the  movement  inaugurated  by  his  father  from  its  original 
pathway  and  purpose.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  any  one 
can  hold  such  a  position  if  he  is  familiar  with  the  lan¬ 
guage  and  spirit  of  the  Declaration  and  Address.  Not 
only  in  the  passages  quoted  above,  but  indeed  throughout 
the  document,  the  plain  assumption  is  made  that  the  only 
real  and  substantial  hope  for  union  lies  in  the  restora¬ 
tion  of  the  Apostolic  order. 

The  underlying  thesis  of  the  Declaratio?i  and  Address  is 
the  belief  that  Christians  of  all  parties  are  separated  by 
non-essentials  and  that  they  are  in  realitv  at  one.  as  the 
author  said,  “in  the  great  doctrines  of  faith  and  holi¬ 
ness,”  and  also  with  regard  “to  the  positive  ordinances 


66  The  Christian  Union  Overture 

of  Gospel  institution.”  “Private  opinion”  or  “human 
invention,”  Mr.  Campbell  regards  as  the  chief  contribut¬ 
ing  cause  of  disunion.  Essential  things,,  he  is  convinced, 
cannot  be  a  matter  of  difference  since  the  universal 
reason  must  secure  harmonious  argeement  with  regard 
to  them.  This  is  a  remarkable  anticipation  of  modern 
scientific  analysis  in  the  frank  admission  “our  dear 
brethren  of  all  denominations  will  please  to  consider 
that  we  have  our  educational  prejudices  and  particular 
customs  to  struggle  with  as  well  as  they.”  It  is  only 
upon  the  basis  of  the  truth  containing  in  this  quotation 
that  Christian  unity  can  be  hoped  for.  So  long  as  each 
individual  considers  himself  infallibly  inspired  and  is 
unwilling  to  concede  that  his  views,  like  that  of  others, 
are  for  the  most  part  the  product  of  inherited  prejudices, 
local  environment,  and  educational  processes  in  general, 
there  is  not  much  hope  for  union.  When  we  all  get 
ready  to  admit  that  there  is  at  least  a  possibility  that 
each  of  us  may  be  mistaken,  the  outlook  will  be  much 
better  for  agreement. 

With  regard  to  Mr.  Campbell’s  contention  that  the 
chief  ground  of  separation  which  divides  Christians  into 
different  groups  and  parties  has  to  do  with  non-essen¬ 
tials,  Christian  history  will,  no  doubt,  largely  sub¬ 
stantiate  his  position.  The  causes  of  disunion  have  been 
usually  of  the  most  trivial  character.  Moreover,  the 
less  significant  the  reasons  for  separation,  the  more 
intense  and  bitter  has  been  the  sectarian  feeling  which 
these  causes  have  aroused.  The  divisions  within  the 
different  Protestant  denominations  of  America,,  which 
arose  at  the  time  of  the  Civil  War  period,  furnish  a  case 
in  point.  Slavery  has  been  abolished  for  over  a  half 
century  and  the  overwhelming  majority  of  people  have 
forgotten  the  underlying  issues  of  the  conflict  between 
the  states,  but  the  churches  which  originally  separated 
over  the  war  question  are  still  apart. 

The  Disciples  of  Christ  have  sometimes  congratulated 
themselves  because  they  did  not  allow  the  war  to  divide 
them.  Lest  they  should  become  puffed  up  over  the  mat- 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


67 


ter,  however,  they  have  been  given  a  thorn  in  the  flesh— 
a  veritable  messenger  of  satan  to  buffet  them.  What 
the  war  could  not  do.  the  organ  and  the  missionary 
society  have  accomplished  in  abundant  measure.  The 
followers  of  Thomas  Campbell,  who  have  done  such 
violence  to  his  memory  as  to  break  fellowship  over  such 
trivial  nonessentials  as  have  just  been  indicated,  should 
give  attention  to  his  words  in  the  Declaration  and  Ad¬ 
dress:  “What  a  pity  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  should 
be  divided  about  such  things!”  It  must  be  obvious  to 
any  unprejudiced  mind  that  people  who  could  destroy 
the  brotherhood  of  the  faithful  the  ideal  of  unity  be¬ 
cause  of  a  difference  of  opinion  concerning  the  use  of  a 
musical  instrument  in  worship  have  entirely  failed  to 
appreciate  the  meaning  of  the  Declaration  and  Address. 
This  is  not  the  first  nor  the  last  time  in  the  course  of 
history,  however,  when  disciples  have  remained  true  to 
the  name  while  at  the  same  time  entirely  repudiating 
the  principles  of  their  master. 

Mr.  Campbell  expresses  his  idea  of  Christian  unity  at 
its  lowest  terms  in  the  following  statement : 

With  you  all  we  desire  to  unite  in  the  bonds  of  an  entire 
Christian  unity — Christ  alone  being  the  head,  the  center,  his 
word  the  rule — an  explicit  belief  of,  and  manifest  conformity 
to  it,  in  all  things — the  terms.  More  than  this,  you  will  not 
require  of  us;  and  less  we  cannot  require  of  you. 

It  seems  perfectly  obvious  that  these  words  preclude 
any  scheme  of  union  which  could  not  claim  divine  author¬ 
ity  as  interpreted  by  the  common  reason  of  intelligent 
Christians.  The  author  assumes  that  it  is  possible  to 
know  God’s  will  in  all  vital  particulars  and  that  it  is  also 
possible  for  this  knowledge  to  be  universally  recognized 
for  what  it  is.  In  other  words,  God  has  spoken  to  man 
and  has  spoken  so  clearly  that  right  minded  people  should 
be  able  to  agree  with  regard  to  his  message.  When  they 
do  agree,  it  would  seem  to  be  axiomatic  that  they  should 
carry  out  the  basis  of  agreement.  So  sure  is  Mr.  Camp¬ 
bell,  in  the  main,  of  the  substantial  infallibility  of  his 


68 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


platform  for  unity  that  he  discusses  only  incidentally  the 
possibility  of  its  being  erroneous.  He  is  thoroughly  con¬ 
vinced  that  if  Christian  unity  cannot  be  secured  by  this 
means,  the  situation  is  well  nigh  hopeless.  To  use  his 
own  language : 

If  no  such  divine  and  adequate  basis  of  union  can  be  fairly 
exhibited  as  will  meet  the  approbation  of  every  upright  and  in¬ 
telligent  Christian:  nor  such  mode  of  procedure  adopted  in  favor 
of  the  weak,  as  will  not  oppress  their  consciences,  then  the  ac¬ 
complishment  of  this  grand  object  upon  principle,  must  be  for¬ 
ever  impossible. 

It  seems  clear  from  these  and  other  similar  expressions 
that  the  restoration  of  the  apostolic  order  was  so  appeal¬ 
ing  to  the  author  of  the  Declaration  and  Address  that  he 
is  willing  to  stake  his  entire  case  for  union  upon  this  plat¬ 
form.  One  sometimes  wonders  what  he  would  think  up¬ 
on  this  question  if  he  could  come  back  to  earth  at  the 
present  time. 

And  yet  it  is,  after  all,  not  quite  true  to  the  situation 
to  say  that  Thomas  Campbell  had  no  misgivings  about  his 
program.  Hypothetically,  at  least,  he  admits  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  failure.  In  the  sentence  immediately  following 
the  one  which  has  been  quoted,  he  says:  “There  would 
upon  this  supposition  remain  no  other  way  of  accomplish¬ 
ing  it  (Christian  union)  but  merely  by  voluntary  com¬ 
promise  and  good  natured  accommodation.”  Just  what 
the  exact  content  of  the  terms  “voluntary  compromise” 
and  “good  natured  accommodation”  was,  in  Mr.  Camp¬ 
bell’s  mind,  it  is  of  course  impossible  for  us  to  say.  One 
can  hardly  believe  that  he  meant  them  to  cover  things 
which  he  regarded  as  essential  to  the  gospel  message.  The 
definition  of  “essentials,”  however,  is  not  altogether  easy 
— would  Thomas  Campbell,  for  example,  have  regarded 
the  action  of  baptism  as  essential?  Here,  as  is  true  occa¬ 
sionally  of  other  places  in  the  Declaration ,  the  author 
does  not  appear  to  be  entirely  clear  in  his  own  mind.  This 
is  not  due  to  any  special  haziness  of  thinking  but  simply 
because  he  does  not  regard  the  question  as  sufficiently  im- 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


69 


portant  to  claim  much  of  his  thought.  He  is  so  sure  that 
all  right  minded  Christians  will  unite  upon  the  New 
Testament  platform,  if  they  have  a  fair  chance  to  do  so, 
that  he  considers  it  entirely  futile  and  academic  to  dis- 
cuss  the  possibility  of  their  refusal  to  unite  upon  such  a 
basis. 

The  alternative  which  seemed  so  improbable  in  1809 
looms  much  larger  after  the  passing  of  a  hundred  years. 
Thomas  Campbell’s  platform  for  union  has  been  before 
the  Christian  world  for  over  a  century  and  it  has  not  yet 
brought  about  Christian  union.  It  has  no  doubt  had 
great  influence  in  developing  union  sentiment  and  it  has 
gathered  an  extremely  respectable  group  of  followers  who 
thoroughly  believe  in  its  efficacy.  Nevertheless,  the  end 
itself  is  not  here.  Union  has  not  yet  come  upon  “prin¬ 
ciple,”  as  Mr.  Campbell  puts  it.  Are  we  then  to  try  the 
other  alternative  of  seeking  union  by  “voluntary  com- 
promise”  or  “good  natured  accommodation”?  Mr. 
Campbell  does  not  definitely  answer  this  question  in  the 
Declaration  doubtless  for  reasons  already  indicated.  One 
cannot  help  wishing  that  he  had  given  it  a  little  more 
serious  thought.  The  natural  trend  of  his  position  makes 
any  sort  of  compromise  impossible.  He  himself  says  that 
his  platform  affords  an  opportunity  for  union  upon  “the 
solid  basis  of  divinely  revealed  truth,”  but  he  also  says 
there  is  at  least  a  speculative  possibility  of  union  upon 
“the  good  natured  principle  of  Christian  forbearance 
and  gracious  condescension.”  Beyond  any  question  he 
regarded  the  former  basis  as  far  more  desirable  than  the 
other,  but  it  seems  a  little  dogmatic  to  say  that  in  the 
event  of  the  former  proving  unsuccessful  he  would  have 
given  no  countenance  to  the  latter.  He  seems  assured 
that  however  unity  may  come,  its  coming  cannot  be  for¬ 
ever  postponed.  The  Lord’s  people  must  at  some  time 
do  the  will  of  their  gracious  Redeemer  “whose  expressed 
command  to  his  people  is  that  there  be  no  division  among 


70 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


them;  but  that  they  all  walk  by  the  same  rule,  speak  the 
same  things,  and  be  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same 
mind,  and  in  the  same  judgment.” 

V.  TEXT  OF  THE  DECLARATION 

Special  Appeal  to  the  Ministry  in  Behalf  of  Union.  Are  we  not 
all  praying  for  that  happy  event,  when  there  shall  be  but  one 
fold,  as  there  is  but  one  chief  Shepherd?  'What!  shall  we  pray 
for  a  thing,  and  not  strive  to  obtain  it!  not  use  the  necessary 
means  to  have  it  accomplished!!  What  said  the  Lord  to  Moses 
upon  a  piece  of  conduct  somewhat  similar?  “Why  criest  thou 
unto  me?  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel  that  they  go  for¬ 
ward,  but  lift  thou  up  thy  rod,  and  stretch  out  thine  hand.” 

Let  the  ministers  of  Jesus  but  embrace  this  exhortation,  put 
their  hand  to  the  work,  and  encourage  the  people  to  go  forward 
upon  the  firm  ground  of  obvious  truth,  to  unite  in  the  bonds  of 
an  entire  Christian  unity;  and  who  will  venture  to  say  that  it 
would  not  soon  be  accomplished?  “Cast  ye  up,  cast  ye  up,  pre¬ 
pare  the  way,  take  up  the  stumbling-block  out  of  the  way  of  my 
people,”  saith  your  God.  To  you,  therefore,  it  peculiarly  be¬ 
longs,  as  the  professed  and  acknowledged  leaders  of  the  people, 
to  go  before  them  in  this  good  work,  to  remove  human  opinions 
and  the  inventions  of  men  out  of  the  way,  by  carefully  separat¬ 
ing  this  chaff  from  the  pure  wheat  of  primary  and  authentic 
revelation;  casting  out  that,  assumed  authority,  that  enacting 
and  decreeing  power  by  which  those  things  have  been  imposed 
and  established. 

To  this  ministerial  department,  then,  do  we  look  with  anxiety. 
Ministers  of  Jesus,  you  can  neither  be  ignorant  of  nor  unaf¬ 
fected  with  the  divisions  and  corruptions  of  his  Church.  His 
dying  commands,  his  last  and  ardent  prayers  for  the  visible 
unity  of  his  professing  people,  will  not  suffer  you  to  be  indif¬ 
ferent  in  this  matter.  You  will  not,  you  cannot,  therefore,  be 
silent  upon  a  subject  of  such  vast  importance  to  his  personal 
glory  and  the  happiness  of  his  people — consistently  you  cannot; 
for  silence  gives  consent.  You  will  rather  lift  up  your  voice 
like  a  trumpet  to  expose  the  heinous  nature  and  dreadful  con¬ 
sequences  of  those  unnatural  and  antichristian  divisions,  which 
have  so  rent  and  ruined  the  Church  of  God. 

Thus,  in  justice  to  your  station  and  character,  honored  of  the 
Lord,  would  wTe  hopefully  anticipate  your  zealous  and  faithful 
efforts  to  heal  the  breaches  of  Zion;  that  God’s  dear  children 
might  dwell  together  in  unity  and  love;  but  if  otherwise  .  .  . 

we  forbear  to  utter  it.  (See  Mai.  2:1-10.) 

If  Unity  Hereafter,  Why  not  Here!  O!  that  ministers  and 
people  would  but  consider  that  there  are  no  divisions  in  the 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


71 


crave,  nor  in  that  world  which  lies  beyond  it!  there  our  divisions 
must  come  to  an  end!  we  must  all  unite  there!  Would  to  God 
we  could  find  in  our  hearts  to  put  an  end  to  our  short-lived 
divisions  here ;  that  so  we  might  leave  a  blessing  behind  us 
even  a  happy  and  united  Church. 

What  gratification,  what  utility,  in  the  meantime,  can  our  di¬ 
visions  afford  either  to  ministers  or  people?  Should  they  bo 
perpetuated  till  the  day  of  judgment,  would  they  convert  one 
sinner  from  the  error  of  his  ways,  or  save  a  soul  from  death? 
Have  they  any  tendency  to  hide  the  multitude  of  sins  that  are 
so  dishonorable  to  God,  and  hurtful  to  his  people?  Do  they  not 
rather  irritate  and  produce  them?  How  innumerable  and  highly 
aggravated  are  the  sins  they  have  produced,  and  are  at  this  day 
producing,  both  among  professors  and  profane. 

The  Duty  of  Association.  We  entreat,  we  beseech  you 
then,  dear  brethren,  by  all  those  considerations,  to  concur  in 
this  blessed  and  dutiful  attempt.  What  is  the  work  of  all, 
must  be  done  by  all.  Such  was  the  work  of  the  tabernacle  in 
the  wilderness.  Such  is  the  work  to  which  you  are  called,  not  by 
the  authority  of  man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  God  the  Father, 
who  raised  him  from  the  dead.  By  this  authority  are  you  called 
to  raise  up  the  tabernacle  of  David,  that  is  fallen  down  among 
us,  and  to  set  it  up  upon  its  own  base.  This  you  cannot  do, 
while  you  run  every  man  to  his  own  house,,  and  consult  only  the 
interests  of  his  own  party.  Until  you  associate,  consult,  and 
advise  together,  and  in  a  friendly  and  Christian  manner  explore 
the  subject,  nothing  can  be  done. 

We  would  therefore,  with  all  due  deference  and  submission, 
call  the  attention  of  our  brethren  to  the  obvious  and  important 
duty  of  association.  Unite  with  us  in  the  common  cause  of  sim¬ 
ple  evangelical  Christianity;  in  this  glorious  cause  we  are  ready 
to  unite  with  you.  United  we  shall  prevail.  It  is  the  cause  of 
Christ,  and  of  our  brethren  throughout  all  the  Churches,  of 
Catholic  unity,  peace,  and  purity;  a  cause  that  must  finally  pros¬ 
per  in  spite  of  all  opposition.  Let  us  unite  to  promote  it. 

Argument  from  Fulfilled  Prophecy.  Come  forward,  then,  dear 
brethren,  and  help  with  us.  Do  not  suffer  yourselves  to  be  lulled 
asleep  by  that  siren  song  of  the  slothful  and  reluctant  professor: 
“The  time  is  not  yet  come,  the  time  is  not  come,  saith  he:  the 
time  that  the  Lord ’s  house  should  be  built.  ’  ’  Believe  him  not. 
Do  ye  not  discern  the  signs  of  the  times?  Have  not  the  two 
witnesses  arisen  from  their  state  of  political  death,  from  under 
the  long  proscription  of  ages?  Have  they  not  stood  upon  their 
feet,  in  the  presence,  and  to  the  consternation  and  terror  of 
their  enemies?  Has  not  their  resurrection  been  accompanied  with 
a  great  earthquake?  Has  not  the  tenth  part  of  the  great  city 
been  thrown  down  by  it?  Has  not  this  event  aroused  the  nations 
to  indignation?  Have  they  not  been  angry,  yea,  very  angry? 


72 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


Therefore,  O  Lord,  is  thy  wrath  come  upon  them,  and  the  time 
of  the  dead  that  they  should  be  avenged,  and  that  thou  should- 
est  give  reward  to  thy  servants  the  prophets,  and  to  them  that 
fear  thy  name,  both  small  and  great;  and  that  thou  shouldest 
destroy  them  that  have  destroyed  the  earth.  Who  among  us  has 
not  heard  the  report  of  these  things,  of  these  lightnings  and 
thunderings  and  voices;  of  this  tremendous  earthquake  and  great 
hail;  of  these  awful  convulsions  and  revolutions  that  have  dashed 
and  are  dashing  to  pieces  the  nations,  like  a  potter’s  vessel? 
Yea,  have  not  the  remote  vibrations  of  this  dreadful  shock  been 
felt  even  by  us,  whom  God  has  graciously  placed  at  so  great  a 
distance? 

The  Call  to  Freedom  as  well  as  Unity.  What  shall  we  say  to 
these  things?  Is  it  time  for  us  to  sit  still  in  our  corruptions 
and  divisions,  when  the  Lord,  by  his  word  and  providence,  is  so 
loudly  and  expressly  calling  us  to  repentance,  and  reformation? 
‘  ‘  Awake,  awake;  put  on  thy  strength,  O  Zion,  put  on  thy  beau¬ 
tiful  garments,  O  Jerusalem,  the  holy  city;  for  henceforth  there 
shall  no  more  come  unto  thee  the  uncircumcised  and  the  unclean. 
Shake  thyself  from  the  dust,  O  Jerusalem;  arise,  loose  thyself 
from  the  bands  of  thy  neck,  O  captive  daughter  of  Zion.” 

Resume  that  precious,  that  dear-bought  liberty,  wherewith 
Christ  has  made  his  people  free;  a  liberty  from  subjection  to 
any  authority  but  his  own,  in  matters  of  religion.  Call  no  man 
father,  no  man  master  on  earth ;  for  one  is  your  master,  even  Christ, 
and  all  ye  are  brethren.  Stand  fast,  therefore,  in  this  precious 
liberty,  and  be  not  entangled  again  with  the  yoke  of  bondage.  For 
the  vindication  of  this  precious  liberty  have  we  declared  ourselves 
hearty  and  willing  advocates.  For  this  benign  and  dutiful  pur¬ 
pose  have  we  associated,  that  by  so  doing  we  might  contribute 
the  mite  of  our  humble  endeavors  to  promote  it,  and  thus  invite 
our  brethren  to  do  the  same. 

The  Proposed  Platform  for  Union.  As  the  first-fruits  of  our 
efforts  for  this  blessed  purpose  we  respectfully  present  to  their 
consideration  the  following  propositions,  relying  upon  their 
charity  and  candor  that  they  will  neither  despise  nor  miscon¬ 
strue  our  humble  and  adventurous  attempt.  If  they  should  in 
any  measure  serve,  as  a  preliminary,  to  open  up  the  way  to  a 
permanent  Scriptural  unity  among  the  friends  and  lovers  of  truth 
and  peace  throughout  the  Churches,  we  shall  greatly  rejoice  at  it. 

We  by  no  means  pretend  to  dictate,  and  could  we  propose  any¬ 
thing  more  evident,  consistent,  and  adequate,  it  should  be  at 
their  service.  Their  pious  and  dutiful  attention  to  an  object  of 
such  magnitude  will  induce  them  to  communicate  to  us  their 
emendations;  and  thus  what  is  sown  in  weakness  will  be  raised 
up  in  power.  For  certainly  the  collective  graces  that  are  con¬ 
ferred  upon  the  Church,  if  duly  united  and  brought  to  bear  upon 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


73 


any  point  of  commanded  duty,  would  be  amply  sufficient  for  the 
right  and  successful  performance  of  it.  “For  to  one  is  given 
by  the  Spirit  the  word  of  wisdom;  to  another  the  word  of  knowl¬ 
edge  by  the  same  Spirit;  to  another  faith  by  the  same  Spirit; 
to  another  the  discerning  of  spirits;  but  the  manifestation  of  the 
Spirit  is  given  to  every  man  to  profit  withal.  As  every  man, 
therefore,  hath  received  the  gift,  even  so  minister  the  same  on 
to  another  as  good  stewards  of  the  manifold  grace  of  God.” 

In  the  face,  then,  of  such  instructions,  and  with  such  assurance 
of  an  all-sufficiency  of  Divine  grace,  as  the  Church  has  received 
from  her  exalted  Head,  we  can  neither  justly  doubt  the  concurrence 
of  her  genuine  members;  nor  yet  their  ability,  when  dutifully  act¬ 
ing  together,  to  accomplish  anything  that  is  necessary  for  his  glory, 
and  their  own  good;  and  certainly  their  visible  unity  in  truth  and 
holiness,  in  faith  and  love,  is,  of  all  things,  the  most  conducive  to 
both  these,  if  we  may  credit  the  dying  commands  and  prayers  of 
our  gracious  Lord. 

In  a  matter,  therefore,  of  such  confessed  importance,  our  Chris¬ 
tian  brethren,  however  unhappily  distinguished  by  party  names, 
will  not,  cannot,  withhold  their  helping  hand.  We  are  as  heartily 
willing  to  be  their  debtors,  as  they  are  indispensably  bound  to 
be  our  benefactors.  Come,  then,  dear  brethren,  we  most  humbly 
beseech  you,  cause  your  light  to  shine  upon  our  weak  beginnings, 
that  we  may  see  to  work  by  it.  Evince  your  zeal  for  the  glory 
of  Christ,  and  the  spiritual  welfare  of  your  fellow-Christians,  by 
your  hearty  and  zealous  co-operation  to  promote  the  unity,  pur¬ 
ity,  and  prosperity  of  his  Church. 

Not  a  New  Creed.  Let  none  imagine  that  the  subjoined  prop¬ 
ositions  are  at  all  intended  as  an  overture  toward  a  new  creed 
or  standard  for  the  Church,  or  as  in  any  wise  designed  to  be 
made  a  term  of  communion;  nothing  can  be  further  from  our 
intention.  They  are  merely  designed  for  opening  up  the  way, 
that  we  may  come  fairly  and  firmly  to  original  ground  upon  clear 
and  certain  premises,  and  take  up  things  just  as  the  apostles 
left  them;  that  thus  disentangled  from  the  accruing  embarrass¬ 
ments  of  intervening  ages,  we  may  stand  with  evidence  upon 
the  same  ground  on  which  the  Church  stood  at  the  beginning. 


VI.  COMMENT  UPON  THE  ABOVE 


HE  thorough-going  intellectualism  of  Thomas  Camp- 


1  bell  and  his  freedom  from  any  sort  of  superstitious 
mysticism  are  illustrated  in  his  appeal  to  his  brother 
ministers  not  to  rely  simply  upon  prayers  for  union 
but  to  put  forth  direct  effort  to  achieve  the  goal  desired. 
It  is  useless,  he  says,  “to  pray  for  a  thing  and  not  strive 


74 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


to  attain  it.”  Moreover  lie  quotes  from  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  to  prove  that  God  commanded  his  people  to  help 
him  to  answer  their  own  prayers.  Much  of  the  strength 
which  the  Disciples  of  Christ  have  possessed  with  the 
American  public,  especially  in  sections  like  the  great 
middle  west  where  the  typical  American  is,  perhaps, 
most  often  found,  has  been  due  to  the  practical  charac¬ 
ter  of  their  message.  It  is  not  without  significance  that 
the  plea  of  the  Disciples  has  never  succeeded  as  well 
when  proclaimed  to  races  or  peoples  of  more  emotional 
and  less  practical  turn  of  mind.  Thomas  Campbell  him¬ 
self  was  by  no  means  lacking  in  a  certain  mystical  ap¬ 
preciation,  but  his  prevailing  bent  was  toward  the  in¬ 
tellectual  and  practical  interpretation  of  religion.  On 
the  whole,  he  was  a  pre-Ritsehlian  rather  than  a  fol¬ 
lower  of  Sclileiermacher.  He  was  more  a  disciple  of 
Abelard  than  of  Anselm  or  of  Bernard.  Moreover,  his 
followers  have  in  the  main  agreed  with  him  in  his  theo¬ 
logical  ancestry. 

In  making  his  appeal  to  the  clergy,  the  author  of  the 
Declaration  and  Address  failed  to  forsee  and  to  take 
into  account  the  greatest  opposition  to  the  reunion  of 
the  church.  While  the  principles  of  Christian  union 
have  been  zealously  championed  by  ministers  and  church 
leaders,  it  also  holds  good  that  the  stronghold  of  secta¬ 
rianism  has  always  been  in  the  ranks  of  the  clergy.  Lay¬ 
men  in  all  churches  today  are  anxious  to  get  together, 
but  their  clerical  advisers  at  the  top  keep  up  the  denom¬ 
inational  fences.  Thomas  Campbell  seems  to  have  real¬ 
ized  the  possibility  of  some  such  situation  in  his  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  second  chapter  of  Malachi.  Perhaps  also 
the  very  fervor  of  his  appeal  bears  witness  to  his  ap¬ 
preciation  of  the  clerical  bias. 

The  references  to  “the  firm  ground  of  obvious  truth” 
and  to  “the  pure  wheat  of  primary  and  authentic 
revelation”  indicate  the  essential  faith  of  the  author  in 
his  program  for  Christian  union.  As  we  have  seen  else¬ 
where,  his  confidence  upon  one  or  two  occasions  appears 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union  75 

to  have  faltered  just  a  little,  but  in  the  main  it  was 
thorough-going  and  sincere.  Doubtless  the  rapid  growth 
of  the  movement  which  he  started  help'ed  to  confirm 
Thomas  Campbell  in  this  faith  during  his  later  years. 
Whether  his  confidence  in  the  triumph  of  his  program 
for  union  would  be  as  great  if  he  were  living  today  is 
not  so  clear.  In  any  event,  he  would  doubtless  stake  the 
success  of  his  cause  upon  the  question  of  continued 
belief  in  the  authority  of  the  New  Testament  scriptures. 

There  is  something  quite  modern  in  the  appeal  to 
unity  upon  earth  because  of  the  certain  fact  of  unity 
beyond  the  grave.  Nothing  seems  more  absurd  than  the 
idea  of  separate  heavens  for  the  representatives  of  dif¬ 
ferent  denominational  bodies.  If  one  heaven  is  enough 
on  the  other  side  of  the  great  divide,  why  should  not 
one  church  be  enough  on  this  side"?  And,  moreover,  if 
people  are  good  enough  to  go  to  heaven,  why  ought  they 
not  be  good  enough  to  belong  to  the  same  ecclesiastical 
fellowship  here?  There  is  perhaps  no  more  telling  or 
forceful  plea  against  sectarianism  than  is  involved  in 
the  consideration  just  mentioned.  Nevertheless,  its 
practical  value  as  an  argument  has  never  been  great.  It 
is  too  much  of  a  reductio  ad  absurdum  for  the  average 
man  to  square  his  practice  with  it.  “Of  course/ ’  he 
says,  “I  suppose  we  shall  all  have  to  stay  together  in 
heaven,  but  earth  isn’t  heaven  and  we  are  still  living 
on  earth.” 

In  his  emphasis  upon  the  value  of  conference  and 
Christian  association  as  a  means  to  union,  Mr.  Campbell 
was  in  advance  of  his  age.  Nothing,  however,  could 
have  been  truer  than  his  statement  “until  you  associate, 
consult  and  advise  together ;  and  in  friendly  and  Chris¬ 
tian  manner  explore  the  subject,  nothing  can  be  done.” 
Modern  movements  toward  unity  practically  all  agree 
that  the  only  way  to  make  progress  is  by  friendly  as¬ 
sociation  and  conference.  People  never  understand  each 

other  until  thev  meet  and  discuss  their  differences  in 

•/ 

the  spirit  of  fraternity.  A  policy  of  isolation  is  the  only 


76 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


policy  for  individuals  or  churches  to  follow  if  they  wish 
to  perpetuate  their  grievances  against  others.  Very  few 
prejudices,  whether  theological  or  otherwise,  will  sur¬ 
vive  the  test  of  good-spirited  fellowship.  The  most  sec¬ 
tarian  churches  have  discovered  that  the  only  way  to 
keep  their  spirit  of  separatism  unimpaired  is  by  having 
absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  their  neighbors. 

VII.  INTRODUCTION  TO  THOMAS  CAMPBELL’S 

PLATFORM  FOR  UNION 

JUST  how  far  the  Campbells  adhered  to  the  pre-millen- 
arian  position  is  somewhat  difficult  to  determine. 
Beyond  any  question,  both  of  them  accepted  the  chilias- 
tic  viewpoint  to  a  very  considerable  degree.  Their  em¬ 
phasis  upon  a  return  to  the  New  Testament  order  nec¬ 
essarily  involved  such  an  attitude  for  there  is  a  good 
deal  concerning  the  imminent  Second  Coming  to  be 
found  in  its  pages.  From  the  days  of  Montanus,  it  has 
been  characteristic  of  reform  movements  in  religion  that 
they  have  tended  toward  the  catastrophic  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  Christianity.  Neither  of  the  Campbells  was  dis¬ 
posed,  however,  to  over-stress  this  phase  of  New  Testa¬ 
ment  teaching  and  the  Scotch  common  sense  which  char¬ 
acterized  both  of  them  prevented  any  descent  into  the 
abyss  of  absurdities  with  which  modern  pre-millenarian- 
ism  has  been  so  often  associated. 

To  attempt  any  infallible  exegesis  of  Thomas  Camp¬ 
bell’s  references  to  the  fulfillment  of  the  prophecy  con¬ 
tained  in  Revelation  11  seems  rather  hazardous.  Un¬ 
doubtedly  he  refers  to  well-known  political  changes  in 
contemporary  history,  but  just  which  events  he  has  in 
mind  one  hesitates  to  say.  Somewhat  lengthy  experi¬ 
ence  with  the  ingenuity  which  modern  pre-millenarians 
are  capable  of  exhibiting  in  the  interpretation  of  current 
history  leads  one  to  assume  an  attitude  of  caution,  in 
this  particular  field.  Nevertheless  it  may  be  worth 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


77 


while  to  make  one  or  two  suggestions.  The  “two  wit¬ 
nesses”  who  have  arisen  “from  their  state  of  political 
death  from  under  the  long  proscription  of  ages”  would 
seem  to  refer  to  two  of  the  nations  liberated  by  the  Na¬ 
poleonic  conquests  of  the  early  part  of  the  century. 
Just  which  two  Thomas  Campbell  was  thinking  of  is  a 
more  difficult  problem.  Poland,  Egypt,  and  various 
other  principalities  might  be  included  in  the  list  of 
available  interpretations.  The  “great  earthquake”  may 
have  reference  to  the  earthquake  of  Lisbon  or  to  some 
other  seismic  disturbance  of  lesser  significance.  The 
“tenth  part  of  the  great  city”  which  was  thrown  down 
will  of  course  have  to  be  harmonized  with  the  interpre¬ 
tation  of  the  earthquake.  The  anger  of  the  nations  re¬ 
quires  no  further  elucidation  as  this  was  the  time  when 
the  continent  of  Europe  was  convulsed  by  the  warlike 
operations  of  the  great  Napoleon.  Beyond  any  question, 
the  obvious  nearness  of  the  Messianic  age,  as  revealed 
by  his  interpretation  of  prophecy,  in  the  light  of  cur¬ 
rent  history  had  much  to  do  with  the  author’s  optimism 
throughout  the  pages  of  the  Declaration  and  Address. 

It  was  true  of  those  most  familiar  with  the  facts  dur¬ 
ing  the  Napoleonic  period,  as  it  has  been  true  of  our 
own  contemporaries  during  the  days  of  the  Great  War, 
that  America  in  both  instances  came  to  be  regarded  as 
a  peculiarly  fortunate  land.  Thomas  Campbell  rejoices 
in  the  Providence  which  has  “graciously  placed  us  at 
so  great  a  distance  from  the  awful  convulsions  and  revo¬ 
lutions  that  have  dashed  and  are  dashing  to  pieces  the 
nations  like  a  potter’s  vessel.”  He  sympathized  fully 
with  George  Washington’s  policy  of  avoiding  foreign 
entanglements  and  maintaining  a  splendid  isolation  'with 
the  protecting  distance  of  the  Atlantic  Ocean  to  safe¬ 
guard  our  national  life.  There  is  no  note  of  sympathy 
with,  or  interest  in,  the  European  struggles.  Evidently 
the  author  considers  them  as  simply  the  fulfillment  of 
prophecy  and  solely  as  notes  of  warning  to  the  rest  of 


78  The  Christian  Union  Overture 

the  world.  Europe  furnishes  a  dire  example  by  which 
we  should  profit,  but  we  should  have  no  further  concern 
in  the  matter.  This  was  doubtless  the  prevailing  and 
typical  attitude  of  mind  of  American  citizenship  during 
the  early  years  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

The  message  of  the  Declaration  and  Address  is  not 
only  one  of  unity  but  also  one  of  freedom.  The  author 
exhorts  his  readers  to  stand  fast  in  the  liberty  where¬ 
with  Christ  has  made  his  people  free  and  not  to  be 
entangled  again  with  the  yoke  of  bondage.  Here  the 
Protestant  note  is  struck  along  with  the  Catholic  note 
of  unitv.  The  breaking  down  of  sectarian  barriers  is 
not  to  be  secured  by  the  surrender  of  the  dearly  bought 
freedom  of  the  reformation.  Mr.  Campbell  wants  unity 
but  not  unity  at  any  price.  He  is  willing  to  pay  well 
for  it  but  not  too  well.  He  will  give  up  almost  every¬ 
thing  except  liberty,  but  he  stops  short  when  the  limit 
is  reached.  He  sees  clearly  that  the  essential  principle 
of  Protestantism,  the  right  of  private  judgment,  must 
enter  into  any  true  or  lasting  program  for  Christian 
union. 

The  platform  which  is  suggested  in  the  Declaration 
and  Address  and  which  will  be  discussed  in  detail  later, 
it  will  be  observed,  is  essentially  tentative.  Thomas 
Campbell  was  sensitive  in  the  extreme  with  regard  to 
the  assumption  of  leadership  in  a  matter  of  such  sig¬ 
nificance.  Over  and  over  again,  he  emphasizes  his  own 
unwillingness  to  be  regarded  as  the  leader  of  the  new 
movement.  “We  by  no  means  pretend  to  dictate.”  he 
says,  and  then  goes  on  to  call  attention  to  the  neces¬ 
sity  for  the  contribution  of  the  united  talent  of  the 
church  in  order  that  the  great  project  which  he  sug¬ 
gests  may  be  carried  out.  All  through  the  philosophy 
of  the  Campbells,  there  is  a  fundamental  denial  of 
Carlyle’s  doctrine  that  history  is  made  up  of  the  biog¬ 
raphies  of  a  few  great  personalities.  It  is  the  common 
voice  of  the  collective  reason  which  carries  authority 
with  it  rather  than  the  strident  note  of  a  single  indi- 
dividual.  Of  course  the  Campbells  believed  in  the  value 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


79 


of  personality  and  the  necessity  for  leadership,  but  there 
was  nothing  autocratic  in  their  conception  of  either 
term.  They  had  immense  faith  in  democracy,  in  the 

v  v  7 

rationality  of  the  average  mind  and  they  believed  that 
progress  is  made  best  by  the  slower  movement  which  is 
involved  in  the  consensus  of  many  minds,  than  by  the 
flashlight  program  of  individual  genius.  As  we  have 
mentioned  previously,  this  supreme  confidence  in  the 
practical  infallibility  of  the  universal  mind  is  the  dis¬ 
tinguishing  characteristic  of  Thomas  Campbell’s  philos¬ 
ophy.  It  is  impossible  to  understand  the  logic  of  his 
position  without  recognizing  this  underlying  principle. 

It  is  both  interesting  and  striking  to  note  that  the 
belief  of  the  Campbells  in  the  authority  of  the  common 
mind  is  in  reality  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  infallibility 
as  opposed  to  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  inerrancy  of 
the  Vatican.  Catholic  Modernists,  like  Loisy  and  Tyr¬ 
rell,  claim  that  the  Roman  dogma  means  the  same  at 
bottom  as  the  Protestant.  In  other  words,  the  Vatican 
ought  to  represent  the  collective  mind  of  the  Church  as 
a  whole  instead  of  the  views  of  a  small  coterie  or  of  a 
single  individual,  the  Pope.  Father  Tyrrell,  in  his  re¬ 
cently  published  Letters,  expresses  this  interpretation 
again  and  again.  The  Pope,  he  says,  is  simply  the 
spokesman  of  the  united  sentiment  of  the  Church.  Since 
this  sentiment  speaks  the  voice  of  the  common  mind  of 
Catholic  Christendom,  it  is  as  nearly  infallible  as  is  pos¬ 
sible  for  human  beings.  AVe  can  ask  for  no  greater  de¬ 
gree  of  inerrancy.  Tyrrell’s  view,  it  will  be  observed, 
is  substantially  the  same  as  that  of  Thomas  Campbell 
with  the  exception  that  the  latter  would  not  have  ap¬ 
proved  of  the  Catholic  form  of  expression.  Still  if  the 
Vatican  actually  embodied  the  common  mind  of  Chris¬ 
tendom  as  a  whole,  the  Campbells,  no  doubt,  would  have 
accepted  its  interpretations.  Of  course  as  Tyrrell  is 
regretfully  forced  to  admit,  the  Vatican  does  not  even 
reflect  the  common  mind  of  Catholic  Christendom.  The 
best  proof  of  this  fact  is  found  in  the  excommunication 


80 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


of  the  Modernists  by  papal  decree.  Tyrrell  himself  was 
not  allowed  to  be  buried  in  consecrated  ground  and  his 
doctrines  were  put  on  the  Index.  Nevertheless,  the 
striking  confirmation  of  the  underlying  philosophy  of 
the  Campbells  by  the  brilliant  protagonists  of  Roman 
Catholic  Modernism  is  exceedingly  significant.  If  the 
Vatican  should  ever  approach  the  doctrine  of  infallibil¬ 
ity  urged  by  Tyrrell  and  Loisy,  it  will  come  desperately 
close  to  furnishing  a  basis  for  union  upon  which  all 
Christians  can  stand.  Until  it  is  willing  to  do  this,  there 
appears  to  the  writer  to  be  absolutely  no  hope  for  agree¬ 
ment. 

If  the  Catholics  have  not  yet  accepted  the  doctrine 
of  infallibility  put  forth  in  the  Declaration  and  Ad¬ 
dress,  the  same  thing  may  be  said  of  the  vast  majority 
of  Protestants.  It  is  true  that  the  real  significance  of 
the  Campbells’  position  has,  perhaps,  never  been  under¬ 
stood  by  the  overwhelming  majority  of  those  whom  they 
hoped  to  reach.  It  is  questionable,  indeed,  whether  the 
full  implications  of  these  principles  have  been  under¬ 
stood  by  the  majority  of  those  who  have  been  their 
nominal  advocates.  Nevertheless,  truth  is  truth,  and 
nothing  is  more  certain  than  the  fact  that  the  basic 
principle  of  the  Declaration  will  some  day  become  the 
acknowledged  standard  of  a  united  Christendom.  Only 
in  this  way  can  science  and  religion  march  hand  in 
hand,  something  which  must  be  true  of  the  future  his¬ 
tory  of  both  of  them.  The  days  of  superstitious  and 
autocratic  authority  are  past.  The  days  of  the  divinely 
rational  authority  are  yet  to  come.  Here  and  there,  a 
few  people,  like  Tyrrell  and  Loisy,  recognize  the  sig¬ 
nificance  of  these  things  even  in  the  very  presence  of 
the  most  autocratic  imperialism.  Others,  under  more 
favorable  circumstances,  are  rapidly  coming  to  see  the 
same  thing.  When  the  vision  becomes  more  perfect  and 
more  universal  the  barriers  of  sectarianism  will  fall,  and 
the  goal  which  the  Declaration  and  Address  proposes 
will  be  achieved. 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


81 


VIII.  THE  PLATFORM  FOR  UNITY 

Proposition  One,  The  Church  Defined 

Having’  said  so  much  to  solicit  attention  and  prevent  mistakes, 
we  submit  as  follows : 

PROPOSITION  1.  That  the  Church  of  Christ  upon  earth  is 
essentially,  intentionally,  and  constitutionally  one;  consisting  of  all 
those  in  every  place  that  profess  their  faith  in  Christ  and  obedi¬ 
ence  to  Him  in  all  things  according  to  the  Scriptures,  and  that 
manifest  the  same  by  their  tempers  and  conduct,  and  of  none  else; 
as  none  else  can  be  truly  and  properly  called  Christians. 

Proposition  One  of  the  Declaration  contains  its  most 
important  statement  and  may  be  regarded  as  the  keynote 
of  the  position  taken  by  its  author.  It  asserts  the 
necessary  unity  of  the  Church  of  Christ  and  also  defines 
who  are  and  who  are  not  Christians. 

There  is  perhaps  no  statement  in  the  whole  round  of 
Christian  union  literature  which  is  more  justly  famous 
than  the  declaration  of  Thomas  Campbell^  “that  the 
Church  of  Christ  upon  earth  is  essentially,  intentionally, 
and  constitutionally  one.”  It  ranks  along  with  Chil- 
lingworth’s  maxim,  “the  Bible  and  the  Bible  alone  is  the 
religion  of  Protestants,”  and  the  still  more  famous  word 
of  Meldenius,  “in  things  essential,  unity;  in  non-essen¬ 
tials,  liberty;  in  all  things,  charity.”  The  emphatic  and 
comprehensive  character  of  Mr.  Campbell’s  definition  is 
indicated  by  the  three  adverbs  which  he  uses.  The  word 
“essentially”  carries  with  it  the  idea  that  unity  is  no 
extraneous  or  insignificant  feature  of  the  Church  but 
that  it  belongs  to  the  very  essence,  as  the  Scholastics 
used  to  put  it,  of  the  concept.  In  other  words,  a  divided 
Church  is  a  contradiction  in  itself.  The  only  true 
Church  of  Christ  must  be  a  united  Church.  The  very 
structure,  the  underlying  substance,  as  it  were,  of  the 
whole  Church  idea  requires  unity.  The  denominational 
theory  of  the  Church  is  therefore  erroneous  and  without 
foundation.  At  this  point,  Thomas  Campbell  is  at  one 
with  the  High  Church  interpretation  which  makes  unity, 


82 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


along  with  catholicity,  holiness,  and  apostolicity,  one  of 
the  essential  marks  of  the  Christian  ecclesia. 

In  asserting  the  ‘‘intentional”  feature  in  the  unity 
of  the  Church,  Thomas  Campbell  brings  in  the  element 
of  purpose  quite  in  harmony  with  his  Presbyterian  for¬ 
bears.  Church  unity  did  not  grow  up  of  itself  nor  is 
it  to  be  regarded  as  a  product  of  natural  selection  in 
the  religious  world.  The  Church,  in  other  words,  pos¬ 
sesses  a  divine  norm,  or  standard,  which  was  deliberately 
given  it  by  its  Author  and  which,  for  this  very  reason, 
cannot  be  improved  upon.  Unity  is  one  of  the  distin¬ 
guishing  characteristics  of  the  divine  plan  for  the 
Church.  Schism  is  a  sin  and  doubtless  one  of  the  great¬ 
est  sins  which  a  follower  of  Christ  can  commit.  To  de¬ 
stroy  the  unity  of  the  Church  means  to  destroy  its  es¬ 
sential  program  and  plan  for  the  salvation  of  the  world. 
Any  one  who  does  this  deliberately  is  using  his  energies 
to  thwart  the  very  purpose  for  which  Jesus  came  into 
the  world  and  for  which  he  gave  up  his  life  on  the 
cross.  Christian  unity,  because  it  is  “intentional”  and 
not  accidental  or  casual,  places  a  supreme  obligation 
for  its  realization  upon  Christians  of  all  parties  and 
classes. 

The  idea  involved  in  the  word  “constitutionally”  is 
structural  or  political  rather  than  metaphysical  or  mys¬ 
tical.  The  underlying  philosophy  involved  in  Christian 
union  is  brought  out  in  the  word  “essentially.”  The 
mystical  and  sacramental  feature  is  embodied  in  the 
word  “intentional,”  and  the  political  and  organizational 
elements  in  the  word  “constitutional.”  The  Church  of 
Christ  has  a  constitution,  a  definite  structure,  an  organ¬ 
ization  which  it  must  maintain  in  the  world.  It  belongs 
to  the  very  warp  and  woof  of  the  organization  that  it 
should  be  unitary.  The  ideal  of  a  federation  of 
churches,  for  example,  violates  the  “constitutional” 
unity  of  the  body  of  Christ.  There  is  no  place  in  the 
political  framework  of  the  ecclesia  for  separate  denom- 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


83 


inations  or  sects.  The  Church  is  a  seamless  robe  and 
not  a  Joseph’s  coat  of  many  colored  patches. 

Thomas  Campbell’s  definition  of  a  Christian  will 
hardly  be  contested  even  by  those  who  may  refuse  to 
accept  its  practical  implications.  It  stresses  the  ethical 
note  and  makes  character  a  test  of  faith.  There  is  some 
ambiguity  in  the  expression  “obedience  to  him  in  all 
things  according  to  the  Scriptures,”  but  it  should  be 
remembered  that  it  is  the  “tempers  and  conduct”  of 
the  individuals  in  question  which  determine  the  reality 
of  their  obedience.  It  is  interesting,  in  this  connection, 
to  note  that  the  author  of  the  Declaration  does  not,  along 
with  Augustine  and  Calvin,  make  the  criterion  of  elec¬ 
tion  fundamental  in  defining  the  Church,  nor  does  he, 
along  with  Cyprian  or  Aquinas,  make  baptism  the  di¬ 
viding  mark,  but  rather  assigns  to  character  and  con¬ 
duct  the  place  which  so  many  theologians  have  given  to 
election  and  baptism.  At  this  point  he  is  more  of  a 
Socinian  than  he  is  a  Catholic  or  a  Calvinist.  At  the 
same  time,  it  is  to  be  noted,  that  he  makes  a  profession 
of  faith  in  Christ  and  open  obedience  to  him  essentials. 
This  means,  of  course,  church  membership  of  some  kind 
or  other.  To  belong  to  the  Church  is,  therefore,  neces¬ 
sary  in  order  to  be  a  Christian,  but  even  if  you  are  a 
church  member  and  fail  to  manifest  your  faith  by  your 
temper  and  conduct,  you  cannot  be  truly  and  properly 
called  a  Christian.  There  is  in  all  this  the  stern  moral 
background  which  was  characteristic  of  so  many  of  the 
independent  churches  of  the  Reformation, 

Proposition  Two,  The  Province  of  the  Local 

Congregation 

PROPOSITION  2.  That  although  the  Church  of  Christ  upon 
earth  must  necessarily  exist  in  particular  and  distinct  societies, 
locally  separate  one  from  another,  yet  there  ought  to  be  no  schisms, 
no  uncharitable  divisions  among  them.  They  ought  to  receive 
each  other  as  Christ  Jesus  hath  also  received  them,  to  the  glory 
of  God.  And  for  this  purpose,  they  ought  all  to  walk  by  the 


84 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


same  rule,  to  mind  and  speak  the  same  thing;  and  to  be  perfectly 
joined  together  in  the  same  mind,  and  in  the  same  judgment. 

This  proposition  must  be  understood  in  connection 
with  Proposition  One.  Although  there  is  only  one 
Church  of  Christ,  there  are  of  necessity  many  local 
churches  or  congregations.  These  groups  are  to  be 
united,  not  through  any  ecclesiastical  overlordship  but 
in  the  common  bond  of  brotherhood  and  love.  The  con¬ 
gregations  are  “to  receive  each  other  as  Christ  Jesus 
has  received  them,  to  the  glory  of  God.”  This,  of 
course,  involves  a  great  deal  more  fraternity  than  exists 
today  in  the  nominally  Christian  world.  The  fact  that 
Thomas  Campbell  did  not  contemplate  a  mere  unity  of 
sentiment  or  of  practical  co-operation  is  clearly  indicated 
by  his  reference  “to  minding  and  speaking  the  same 
thing,”  and  to  the  necessity  “for  being  perfectly  joined 
together  in  the  same  mind  and  in  the  same  judgment.” 
When  Christian  union  comes,  it  wTill  have  a  definite 
basis  of  rational  agreement  upon  essentials  and  will  not 
be  a  mere  co-operation  in  various  forms  of  service. 

Proposition  Three,  The  Authority  of  the  Scriptures 

PROPOSITION  3.  That  in  order  to  do  this  nothing  ought  to 
be  inculcated  upon  Christians  as  articles  of  faith ;  nor  required 
of  them  as  terms  of  communion,  but  what  is  expressly  taught  and 
enjoined  upon  them  in  the  word  of  God.  Nor  ought  anything  to  be 
admitted,  as  of  divine  obligation,  in  their  church  constitution  and 
managements  but  what  is  expressly  enjoined  by  the  authority  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  his  Apostles  upon  the  New  Testament 
church;  either  in  express  terms  or  by  approved  precedent. 

In  this  famous  passage,  Mr.  Campbell  lays  down  his 
fundamental  doctrine  that  the  Scriptures  as  the  Word 
of  God  constitute  the  only  authority  for  the  Church. 
This  was  of  course  the  fundamental  Protestant  position, 
from  Luther’s  time  on  down,  but  it  was  modified  by 
creedal  statements,  in  almost  all  Protestant  churches, 
to  such  an  extent  as  to  be  practically  nullified.  Luther¬ 
ans  looked  toward  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  Luther’s 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


85 


Shorter  Catechism  for  practical  guidance  in  reli¬ 
gious  matters  more  than  they  did  toward  the  Bible  it¬ 
self.  The  same  thing  was  true  of  the  Calvinists  and  the 
Westminster  formulation.  Every  denomination  had  its 
own  creed,  its  own  catechism,  and  usually  its  own 
prayer  book  or  other  devotional  literature.  All  of  these 
“ rules  of  faith”  claimed  to  be  based  upon  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  and  yet  all  of  them  disagreed  in  such  fashion  as 
hopelessly  to  divide  their  adherents.  Thomas  Campbell 
wished  to  brush  awTay  all  of  these  man-made  causes  of 
schism,  believing  that  if  Protestants,  at  least,  could  all 
get  back  to  the  Bible  and  the  Bible  alone  they  would 
once  more  be  united.  We  recognize  today  that  this  be¬ 
lief  was  perhaps  too  sanguine.  Nevertheless,  it  is  quite 
true  that  there  can  be  no  hope  of  unity  so  long  as  de¬ 
nominations  hold  fast  to  their  confessions,  creeds,  and 
rituals  wTiich  date  after  the  post-apostolic  period.  We 
may  not  be  able  to  get  together  on  the  New  Testament, 
but  it  is  quite  certain  that  we  shall  never  get  together 
on  any  creed  or  confession  of  purely  human  formulation. 

Proposition  Four,  Proper  Place  of  the  New  and  the 

Old  Testament 

PROPOSITION  4.  That  although  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
and  the  New  Testament  are  inseparably  connected,  making  to¬ 
gether  but  one  perfect  and  entire  revelation  of  the  Divine  will, 
for  the  edification  and  salvation  of  the  church;  and  therefore  in 
that  respect  cannot  be  separated;  yet  as  to  what  directly  and 
properly  belongs  to  their  immediate  object,  the  New  Testament  is 
as  perfect  a  constitution  for  the  worship,  discipline,  and  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  New  Testament  church,  and  as  perfect  a  rule  for 
the  particular  duties  of  its  members,  as  the  Old  Testament  was 
for  the  worship,  discipline  and  government  of  the  Old  Testament 
church  and  the  particular  duties  of  its  members. 

The  doctrine  of  the  complete  authority  and  inspira¬ 
tion  of  both  the  Old  and  the  New-  Testament  is  quite 
definitely  asserted  in  this  proposition.  Nevertheless  the 
author  clearly  indicates  that  the  Old  Testament  has 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  worship,  discipline  and 


86 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


government  of  tlie  Church  of  Christ.  Alexander  Camp¬ 
bell  emphasized  this  distinction  still  more  fully  in  his 
famous  Sermon  on  the  Law.  Both  father  and  son  were 
in  advance  of  their  age  and  the  heresy  of  the  latter  at 
this  point  practically  led  to  his  excommunication  by  the 
Bedstone  Baptist  Association  of  which  he  was  at  that 
time  a  member.  It  seems  peculiar  today  that  a  century 
ago  Protestant  Christians  should  almost  universally  have 
regarded  the  Old  Testament  as  verbally  authoritative 
for  Christians,  but  such  was  the  case.  Of  course  the 
progress  of  modern  criticism  has  made  the  Campbells’ 
position  thoroughly  conservative  in  the  light  of  present 
day  knowledge.  It  should  not  be  forgotten,  however, 
that  it  was  anything  but  conservative  at  the  time  when 
it  was  promulgated. 

Proposition  Five,  The  New  Testament  Ordinances 

PROPOSITION  5.  That  with  respect  to  the  commands  and 
ordinances  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  where  the  Scriptures  are 
silent,  as  to  the  express  time  or  manner  of  performance,  if  any 
such  there  be;  no  human  authority  has  power  to  interfere,  in  order 
to  supply  the  supposed  deficiency',  by  making  laws  for  the  church; 
nor  can  anything  more  be  required  of  Christians  in  such  cases,  but 
only  that  they  so  observe  these  commands  and  ordinances,  as  will 
evidently  answer  the  declared  and  obvious  end  of  their  institution. 
Much  less  has  any  human  authority  power  to  impose  new  commands 
or  ordinances  upon  the  church,  which  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has 
not  enjoined.  Nothing  ought  to  be  received  into  the  faith  or 
worship  of  the  church;  or  be  made  a  term  of  communion  among 
Christians,  that  is  not  as  old  as  the  New  Testament. 

This  section  is  somewhat  awkwardly  constructed  and 
may'  seem,  at  first  sight,  to  be  an  attempt  to  limit  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  interest  of  a  narrow 
legalism.  The  purpose  of  the  author,  however,  is  not 
one  of  constraint  but  of  freedom.  He  is  trydng  to 
emphasize  the  fact  that  where  there  is  no  express  word 
of  authority  in  the  New  Testament  for  church  forms  or 
ordinances,  the  individual  Christian  is  left  free  to  ob¬ 
serve  them  as  he  may  deem  proper.  Any  attempt  to 
curb  his  freedom  in  this  particular  is  a  violation  of  the 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


87 


spirit  of  the  New  Testament  and  should  be  condemned. 
The  real  point  to  the  paragraph  is  found  in  the  last 
sentence  which  asserts  that  nothing  should  be  made  a 
matter  of  faith  or  a  test  of  communion  amongst  Chris¬ 
tians  which  is  not  as  old  as  the  New  Testament.  Here 
again  Mr.  Campbell  sweeps  away,  at  one  stroke,  the 
whole  structure  of  post  apostolic  dogma. 

Proposition  Six,  The  Proper  Place  of  Theology 

PROPOSITION  6.  That  although  inferences  and  deductions 
from  scripture  premises,  when  fairly  inferred,  may  be  truly  called 
the  doctrine  of  God’s  holy  word:  yet  are  they  not  formally  bind¬ 
ing  upon  the  consciences  of  Christians  farther  than  they  perceive 
the  connection,  and  evidently  see  that  thev  are  so:  for  their  faith 
must  not  stand  in  the  wisdom  of  men;  but  in  the  power  and 
veracity  of  God — therefore  no  such  deductions  can  be  made  terms 
of  communion,  but  do  properly  belong  to  the  after  and  progres¬ 
sive  edification  of  the  church.  Hence  it  is  evident  that  no  such 
deductions  or  inferential  truths  ought  to  have  any  place  in  the 
church’s  confession. 

This  is  one  of  the  most  important  sections  of  the  Dec¬ 
laration.  It  teaches  the  place  and  value  of  theology  in 
the  Christian  economy  and  also  emphasizes  the  progres¬ 
sive  character  of  the  Church.  Theology,  as  Mr.  Camp¬ 
bell  sees  clearly,  can  never  be  made  authoritative  for 
the  reason  that  it  is  progressive  in  its  nature  and  by  the 
very  law  of  its  growth  must  be  constantly  getting  out 
of  date.  Nevertheless  theology  is  useful  because  it  in¬ 
volves  progress  in  thought  and  in  the  higher  intellectual 
life  of  the  Christian.  Thomas  Campbell  was  too  much  of 
a  scholar  to  decry  the  value  of  scholastic  investigation. 
He  believed  in  theology  but  he  did  not  believe  in  mak- 
ing  its  conclusions  a  test  of  fellowship  among  Christians. 
He  believed  in  the  progressive  nature  and  character  of 
the  Church,  but  also  believed  that  in  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures  we  have  an  ideal  which  can  never  be  out¬ 
grown. 


88 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


Proposition  Seven,  The  Futility  of  Human  Creeds 

PROPOSITION  7.  That  although  doctrinal  exhibitions  of  the 
great  system  of  divine  truths,  and  defensive  testimonies  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  prevailing  errors,  be  highly  expedient;  and  the  more  full 
and  explicit  they  be,  for  those  purposes,  the  better;  yet  as  these 
must  be  in  a  great  measure  the  effect  of  human  reasoning,  and 
of  course  must  contain  many  inferential  truths,  they  ought  not  to 
be  made  terms  of  Christian  communion:  unless  we  suppose,  what 
is  contrary  to  fact,  that  none  have  a  right  to  the  communion  of 
the  church,  but  such  as  possess  a  very  clear  and  decisive  judgment; 
or  are  come  to  a  very  high  degree  of  doctrinal  information; 
whereas  the  church  from  the  beginning  did,  and  ever  will,  consist 
of  little  children  and  young  men,  as  well  as  fathers. 

Proposition  Seven  is  only  a  continuation  and  ex¬ 
tension  of  the  principal  idea  contained  in  Proposition 
Six.  It  emphasizes  the  uselessness  of  ereedal  stand¬ 
ards  as  tests  of  fellowship  by  calling  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  Church  has  always  been  made  up  of  peo¬ 
ple  who  could  not  understand  highly  technical  state¬ 
ments  and  therefore  could  not  be  included  in  the  group 
if  such  standards  were  set  up.  Of  course  this  consider¬ 
ation  is  acknowledged  today  by  the  churches  which  pos¬ 
sess  elaborate  doctrinal  symbols  in  their  distinction  be¬ 
tween  the  ministry  and  the  laity.  In  other  words,  the 
minister  alone  is  supposed  to  understand  and  subscribe 
to  the  creed.  A  much  simpler  statement  of  faith  is  suf¬ 
ficient  for  church  membership.  Bishop  Gore,  in  his  ad¬ 
vocacy  of  the  Nicene  formula  as  the  ereedal  basis  for 
the  United  Church,  at  the  Geneva  meeting  of  1920,  made 
this  distinction  very  clear.  He  wanted  all  of  the  min¬ 
istry  to  pledge  allegiance  to  the  Athenasian  view  of  the 
Trinity,  but  did  not  wish  to  require  such  a  pledge  from 
the  church  membership  as  a  whole.  The  justification  of 
this  position  lies  in  the  belief  that  if  you  can  control 
the  thought  leaders  of  a  movement  it  is  easy  to  control 
their  followers.  Nevertheless  there  is  a  certain  absurd¬ 
ity  in  permitting  one  class  of  people  to  become  Chris¬ 
tians  upon  a  thought  basis  differing  from  that  of  another 
class.  It  is  nowhere  said  in  the  New  Testament  that 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


89 


the  apostles  should  believe  anything  not  required  of 
their  followers.  There  is  one  creed  for  all  Christians 
alike  so  far  as  the  apostolic  order  is  concerned. 

There  can  be  no  question  but  that  the  attitude  as¬ 
sumed  toward  human  creeds  in  the  Declaration  and  Ad¬ 
dress  is  somewhat  more  generous  and  tolerant  than  was 
the  later  position  of  Alexander  Campbell.  In  the  superb 
polemic  against  man-made  standards  of  faith  contained 
in  the  debate  with  Rice,  the  younger  Campbell  is  much 
more  vigorous  in  his  opposition  than  was  true  of  his 
father  four  decades  earlier.  Doubtless  controversy  had 
helped  to  steel  the  convictions  of  both  the  reformers  and 
especially  of  the  one  in  the  forefront  of  the  conflict. 
The  fact  remains,  however,  that  there  is  no  position  in 
the  entire  program  of  the  Restoration  which  is  more 
rapidly  gaining  in  popular  favor  than  its  attitude  upon 
dogmatic  creeds. 

Proposition  Eight,  Terms  of  Admission  to  the  Church 

PROPOSITION  8.  That  as  it  is  not  necessary  that  persons 
should  have  a  particular  knowledge  or  distinct  apprehension  of  all 
divinely  revealed  truths  in  order  to  entitle  them  to  a  place  in  the 
Church;  neither  should  they,  for  this  purpose,  be  required  to  make 
a  profession  more  extensive  than  their  knowledge;  but  that,  on  the 
contrary,  their  having  a  due  measure  of  Scriptural  self-knowledge 
respecting  their  lost  and  perishing  condition  by  nature  and  prac¬ 
tice,  and  of  the  way  of  salvation  through  Jesus  Christ,  accompanied 
with  a  profession  of  their  faith  in  and  obedience  to  him,  in  all 
things,  according  to  his  word,  is  all  that  is  absolutely  necessary 
to  qualify  them  for  admission  into  his  Church. 

If  it  is  not  necessary  for  one  to  know  everything 
about  religion  in  order  to  become  a  member  of  the 
Church,  it  is  obviously  clear  that  he  ought  not  to  be  re¬ 
quired,  as  Thomas  Campbell  says,  “to  make  a  profes¬ 
sion  more  extensive  than  his  knowledge.  ”  The  essen¬ 
tial  things  involved  in  the  idea  of  church  fellowship 
are : 

(1)  The  consciousness  of  sin. 

(2)  The  acceptance  af  salvation  through  Jesus  Christ. 

(3)  Willing  obedience  and  open  profession  of  faith  in  harmony 
with  the  teaching  of  God’s  word. 


90 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


These  three  considerations  have  always  been  accepted 
as  basic  and  fundamental  by  church  leaders  of  all  par¬ 
ties.  Repentance,  faith,  and  obedience  represent  sal¬ 
vation  at  its  lowest  terms.  Upon  this  question,  the 
author  of  the  Declaration  and  Address  is  at  one  with 
the  universal  judgment  of  Christendom. 

There  is  one  statement  in  proposition  eight  which  in¬ 
dicates  the  adherence  of  Thomas  Campbell  to  a  dogma 
which  he  afterwards  gave  up.  We  refer  to  the  doctrine 
of  original  sin.  He  speaks  of  the  “lost  and  perishing 
condition”  of  those  who  are  sinners  “by  nature  and 
practice.”  The  words  “nature”  and  “practice”  can 
hardly  be  understood  otherwise  than  in  the  usual 
theological  distinction  between  “original”  and  “posi¬ 
tive”  sin.  Later  on,  Thomas  Campbell  was  brought  to 
see  that  “original  sin”  involved  a  moral  contradiction 
and,  therefore,  surrendered  it  along  with  the  practice 
of  infant  baptism. 

Proposition  Nine,  The  Brotherhood  of  the  Church 

PROPOSITION  9.  That  all  that  are  enabled  through  grace  to 
make  such  a  profession,  and  to  manifest  the  reality  of  it  in  their 
tempers  and  conduct,  should  consider  each  other  as  the  precious 
saints  of  God,  should  love  each  other  as  brethren,  children  of  the 
same  family  and  Father,  temples  of  the  same  Spirit,  members  of 
the  same  body,  subjects  of  the  same  grace,  objects  of  the  same 
Divine  love,  bought  with  the  same  price,  and  joint-heirs  of  the 
same  inheritance.  Whom  God  hath  thus  joined  together  no  man 
should  dare  to  put  asunder. 

The  essential  brotherhood  of  the  church  or,  as  the 
old  reformers  put  it,  of  “the  elect”  has  ahvays  been 
very  orthodox  in  theory  if  not  in  practical  observance. 
As  to  the  apostolicity  of  the  doctrine,  there  can  be  no 
question.  If  the  Early  Church  was  anything  at  all,  it 
was  a  brotherhood.  The  supreme  test  of  loyalty  in  the 
martyr  days  was  the  embodiment  of  this  principle.  Ter- 
tullian  saj's  that  the  heathen  could  not  understand  the 
single  hearted  devotion  of  Christians  to  each  other  and 
kept  exclaiming  in  amazement  “See  how  these  Chris- 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


91 


tians  love  one  another!”  Of  course  the  apostolic  in¬ 
junction,  “By  this  shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are  my 
disciples  if  ye  have  love  one  to  another”  lay  back  of 
this  practice.  There  was  nothing  about  the  anarchic 
and  discordant  situation,  in  which  Thomas  Campbell 
saw  the  Christians  about  him  plunged,  which  so  dis¬ 
turbed  him  as  the  universal  disregard  of  this  funda¬ 
mental  principle.  He  rightly  saw  that  the  very  heart 
of  the  Christian  religion  is  involved  in  the  problem. 
Christians  who  do  not  love  each  other  are  not  Chris¬ 
tians  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word,  and  any  system  of 
church  relations  which  fails  to  foster  the  spirit  of 
brotherhood  must  have  something  radically  wrong 
about  it.  The  followers  of  Christ  constitute  the  great 
family  of  the  faithful.  This  family  must  be  held  to¬ 
gether  by  the  ties  of  love  and  devotion.  Assuredly, 
this  is  the  most  elementary  consideration  in  any  true 
view  of  the  nature  and  character  of  the  Church  of 
Christ. 

In  proposition  nine,  again,  we  have  an  echo  of  the 
Calvinistic  theology  to  which  Mr.  Campbell  adhered. 
It  is  only  those  “that  are  enabled  through  grace”  to 
make  a  profession  of  their  faith  who  have  a  place  in  the 
company  of  the  elect.  It  is  true  that  the  test  of  their 
calling  is  to  be  found  “in  their  tempers  and  conduct,” 
but  this  fact  does  not  interfere  with  the  predestinarian 
dogma.  No  doubt,  the  author’s  consciousness  of  the 
evil  of  disunion  was  all  the  more  poignant  because  he 
believed  in  the  doctrine  of  election.  It  seemed  incon¬ 
ceivable  to  him  that  those  who  had  been  foreordained 
by  the  grace  of  God  to  eternal  salvation  should  be  so 
unappreciative  of  this  grace  and  of  their  own  high  call¬ 
ing  as  to  be  unwilling  to  live  on  terms  of  brotherhood 
with  each  other. 

Proposition  Ten,  The  Sin  of  Church  Divisions 

PROPOSITION  10.  That  division  among  the  Christians  is  a 
horrid  evil,  fraught  with  many  evils.  It  is  antiChristian,  as  it 
destroys  the  visible  unity  of  the  body  of  Christ;  as  if  he  were 


92 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


divided  against  himself,  excluding  and  excommunicating  a  part  of 
himself.  It  is  antiscriptural,  as  being  strictly  prohibited  by  his 
sovereign  authority;  a  direct  violation  of  his  express  command. 
It  is  antinatural,  as  it  excites  Christians  to  contemn,  to  hate,  and 
oppose  one  another,  who  are  bound  by  the  highest  and  most  en¬ 
dearing  obligations  to  love  each  other  as  brethren,  even  as  Christ 
has  loved  them.  In  a  word,  it  is  productive  of  confusion  and  of 
every  evil  work. 

The  curse  of  schism  has  never  been  emphasized  in 
stronger  or  more  emphatic  language  than  it  is  in  the 
above  paragraph.  It  is  denounced  (1)  as  anti-Christian, 
(2)  as  antiscriptural,  and  (3)  as  antinatural.  It  is  anti- 
Christian  because  the  Church,  in  itself,  constitutes  the 
body  of  Christ.  Division  in  the  Church,  therefore, 
means  division  in  Christ’s  own  body,  something  which 
seemed  peculiarly  abhorrent  to  the  reverential  temper 
of  Thomas  Campbell.  The  Hegelian  Absolute  had  not 
yet  been  proclaimed  when  the  Declaration  and  Address 
was  written.  Moreover,  it  is  doubtful  whether  either  of 
the  Campbells  took  much  interest  in  it  when  it  was  fin¬ 
ally  launched  upon  the  philosophical  world.  Those  who 
accepted  the  idea,  however,  would  not  have  felt  dis¬ 
turbed  over  the  schism  in  the  body  of  the  Church.  If 
Cod,  or  the  Absolute,  includes  everything  there  is  with¬ 
in  himself,  he  surely  includes  all  kinds  of  schisms.  If 
this  is  true  of  the  Absolute,  in  a  smaller  way  it  may 
be  true  of  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity.  Of  course 
to  those  who,  like  the  writer,  do  not  accept  the  Absolute 
position  in  any  form,  Thomas  Campbell’s  arguments 
still  hold  good.  A  church  made  up  of  warring  frag¬ 
ments  is  as  useless  and  as  contradictory  as  is  a  deity 
molded  after  the  same  fashion. 

The  antiscriptural  nature  of  this  union  is  easily  made 
out.  Aside  from  the  direct  reference  in  the  seventeenth 
chapter  of  the  Gospel  of  John,  the  universal  tenor  of 
Christ’s  teaching  is  against  schism.  There  is  no  scrip¬ 
tural  authority  for  church  divisions  on  the  basis  of  any 
sound  critical  exegesis.  It  is  true  that  in  the  older  days 
extreme  denominationalists  occasionally  sought  out  iso- 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


93 


lated  texts  which  might  be  twisted  into  an  endorsement 
of  separatism.  Even  this  unfortunate  practice  has  now 
largely  fallen  into  disuse.  There  are  few  principles 
more  widely  or  universally  accepted  nowadays  by  Chris¬ 
tians  of  all  classes  than  the  fact  that  the  scriptures  teach 
the  fundamental  unity  of  the  church. 

The  antinatural  character  of  disunion  appears  as  the 
climax  of  the  argument.  Church  divisions  cause  Chris¬ 
tians  to  sink  lower  in  the  scale  than  those  who  are  de¬ 
prived  of  the  privileges  of  religion.  It  is  unfortunately 
true  that  hatred,  jealousy,  and  strife  are  often  mani¬ 
fested  in  their  most  extreme  forms  by  professing  Chris¬ 
tians.  The  lack  of  unity  which  characterizes  the  fol¬ 
lowers  of  Jesus  is  largely  responsible  for  this  situation. 
Thomas  Campbell  is  not  guilty  of  exaggeration  when  he 
speaks  of  disunion  as  “a  horrid  evil”  and  accuses  it  of 
being  “productive  of  confusion  and  of  every  evil 
work.” 

Proposition  Eleven,  Causes  of  Divisions 

PROPOSITION  11.  That  (in  some  instances)  a  partial  neglect 
of  the  expressly  revealed  will  of  God,  and  (in  others)  an  assumed 
authority  for  making  the  approbation  of  human  opinions  and 
human  inventions  a  term  of  communion,  by  introducing  them  into 
the  constitution,  faith,  or  worship  of  the  Church,  are,  and  have 
been,  the  immediate,  obvious,  and  universally  acknowledged  causes, 
of  all  the  corruptions  and  divisions  that  ever  have  taken  place  in 
the  Church  of  God. 

It  may  be  questioned  whether  the  language  used  in 
proposition  eleven  is  entirely  free  from  exaggeration. 
No  doubt  to  Thomas  Campbell’s  mind  the  chief  and,  in 
fact  so  far  as  he  could  see,  the  only  real  causes  of  di- 
vision  are  as  he  has  scheduled  them.  In  the  light  of  the 
past  hundred  years’  history,  however,  we  are  coming  to 
see  that  disunion  is  a  much  more  complex  affair  than 
would  at  first  sight  appear.  Beyond  any  question,  the 
reasons  assigned  by  the  author  of  the  Declaration  and 
Address  for  the  prevailing  lack  of  unity  in  the  Church 
largely  hold  good  today.  Nevertheless,  it  would  seem 


94 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


that  they  are  not  sufficiently  inclusive  to  explain  the  en¬ 
tire  situation.  Let  us  note  briefly  what  these  causes  are 
as  they  are  given  in  proposition  eleven. 

The  first  cause  of  disunion,  we  are  told,  is  “a  par¬ 
tial  neglect  of  the  expressly  revealed  will  of  God.”  Of 
course,  this  statement,  doubtless,  holds  good  in  certain 
instances.  We  think  it  only  fair  to  say,  however,  that 
disagreements  between  Christians  frequently  arise  when 
all  parties  concerned  are  trying  to  obey  the  will  of  God 
as  they  see  it.  For  reasons  which  Mr.  Campbell  himself 
has  mentioned,  even  good  people  do  not  always  inter¬ 
pret  “the  revealed  will  of  God”  in  the  same  way.  So 
long  as  there  are  different  interpretations,  there  will  be 
divisions.  These  can  only  be  removed  when  all  those 
who  are  involved  in  them  come  to  recognize  the  fallibil¬ 
ity  of  their  own  judgments  and  the  possibility  of  error 
on  the  part  of  any  or  all  of  them. 

The  second  reason  for  division  is  the  introduction 
“into  the  constitution,  faith,  or  worship  of  the  church” 
of  “human  opinions  and  human  inventions.”  No  doubt 
this  cause  is  and  has  been  largely  operative  through¬ 
out  the  course  of  church  history.  It  seems  rather  ex¬ 
treme,  however,  to  speak  of  this  item  in  conjunction 
with  the  one  mentioned  above  as  constituting  “the  im¬ 
mediate,  obvious  and  universally  acknowledged  causes 
of  all  the  corruptions  and  divisions  that  ever  have  taken 
place  in  the  church  of  God.”  We  question  whether  Mr. 
Campbell,  if  he  were  alive  today  and  were  rewriting 
his  platform,  would  use  precisely  the  same  language  in 
Proposition  Eleven  which  he  used  in  1809. 

Proposition  Twelve,  Terms  of  Church  Membership 

PROPOSITION  12.  That  all  that  is  necessary  to  the  highest 
state  of  perfection  and  purity  of  the  Church  upon  earth  is,  first, 
that  none  be  received  as  members  but  such  as  having  that  due 
measure  of  scriptural  self-knowledge  described  above,  do  profess 
their  faith  in  Christ  and  obedience  to  him  in  all  things  according 
to  the  Scriptures;  nor,  secondly,  that  any  be  retained  in  her  com¬ 
munion  longer  than  they  continue  to  manifest  the  reality  of  their 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


95 


profession  by  their  temper  and  conduct.  Thirdly,  that  her  min¬ 
isters,  duly  and  scripturally  qualified,  inculcate  none  other  things 
than  those  very  articles  of  faith  and  holiness  expressly  revealed 
and  enjoined  in  the  word  of  God.  Lastly,  that  in  ali  their  ad¬ 
ministrations  they  keep  close  by  the  observance  of  all  divine  or¬ 
dinances,  after  the  example  of  the  primitive  Church,  exhibited  in 
the  New  Testament;  without  any  additions  whatsoever  of  human 
opinions  or  inventions  of  men. 

Proposition  twelve  contains  the  summary  of  the 
church  program  outlined  in  the  Declaration  and  Address. 
It  will  be  observed  that  there  are  four  features  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  outline. 

(1)  That  only  professed  believers  who  acknowledge  the  author¬ 
ity  of  the  Scriptures  should  be  received  into  church  membership. 

(2)  That  only  those  who  live  a  Christian  life  shall  be  retained 
in  the  church  fellowship. 

(3)  That  the  ministry  which  is  to  be  scripturally  qualified  is  to 
preach  nothing  except  that  which  is  expressly  enjoined  in  the  word 
of  God. 

(4)  That  the  Church  ordinances  and  ritual  shall  be  observed  as 
in  the  apostolic  days. 

Of  these  four  considerations,  only  the  first  and  the  last 
were  retained  in  the  practice  of  the  Restoration  Move¬ 
ment,  at  least  in  the  sense  in  which  they  are  here  used. 
The  second  consideration,  in  modified  form,  has  force 
today  but  certainly  not  in  the  rigid  sense  in  which 
Thomas  Campbell  intended  it.  As  for  the  third  item, 
there  are  no  limits  imposed  upon  the  ministers  who 
preach  for  the  Disciples  of  Christ  aside  from  such  con¬ 
siderations  of  honesty  and  decency  as  may  be  necessary 
in  order  to  secure  a  hearing. 

Proposition  Thirteen,  The  Place  of  Expediency 

PROPOSITION  13.  Lastly.  That  if  any  circumstantials  in¬ 
dispensably  necessary  to  the  observance  of  divine  ordinances  be  not 
found  upon  the  page  of  express  revelation,  such,  and  such  only, 
as  are  absolutely  necessary  for  this  purpose  should  be  adopted 
under  the  title  of  human  expedients,  without  any  pretense  to  a 
more  sacred  origin,  so  that  any  subsequent  alteration  or  difference 
in  the  observance  of  these  things  might  produce  no  contention  nor 
division  in  the  Church. 


96 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


Proposition  thirteen  opens  the  way  for  human  ex¬ 
pedients  in  promoting  the  work  of  the  Church.  It  will 
be  observed  that  Mr.  Campbell  is  decidedly  hesitant 
about  the  admissions  which  he  makes.  He  is  so  con¬ 
scious  of  the  part  which  purely  human  considerations 
have  played  in  promoting  church  divisions  that  he  does 
not  wish  to  open  the  door  to  further  dangers.  Never¬ 
theless,  he  is  not  quite  ready  to  admit  that  every  demand 
of  the  modern  age  in  the  field  of  religion  is  specifically 
met  in  the  sacred  writings.  He  safeguards  his  doctrine 
of  expedients,  it  will  be  observed,  by  a  full  recognition 
of  their  fallible  origin  and  by  permitting  full  opportu¬ 
nity  for  amendment  or  alteration  if  such  should  be 
needed. 

IX.  TEXT  OF  THE  DECLARATION— METHOD 
AND  PURPOSE  OF  THE  PLATFORM 

From  the  nature  and  construction  of  these  propositions,  it  will 
evidently  appear,  that  they  are  laid  in  a  designed  subserviency  to 
the  declared  end  of  our  association;  and  are  exhibited  for  the 
express  purpose  of  performing  a  duty  of  previous  necessity,  a  duty 
loudly  called  for  in  existing  circumstances  at  the  hand  of  every 
one  that  would  desire  to  promote  the  interests  of  Zion;  a  duty 
not  only  enjoined,  as  has  been  already  observed  from  Isa.  52:14, 
but  which  is  also  there  predicted  of  the  faithful  remnant  as  a 
thing  in  which  they  would  voluntarily  engage.  ‘  ‘  He  that  putteth 
his  trust  in  me  shall  possess  the  land,  and  shall  inherit  my  holy 
mountain ;  and  shall  say,  Cast  ye  up  cast  ye  up,  prepare  the  way ; 
take  up  the  stumbling-block  out  of  the  way  of  my  people.*' 

To  prepare  the  way  for  a  permanent  Scriptural  unity  among 
Christians,  by  calling  up  to  their  consideration  fundamental  truths, 
directing  their  attention  to  first  principles,  clearing  the  way  before 
them  by  removing  the  stumbling-blocks — the  rubbish  of  ages,  which 
has  been  thrown  upon  it,  and  fencing  it  on  each  side,  that  in 
advancing  toward  the  desired  object  they  may  not  miss  the  way 
through  mistake  or  inadvertancy,  by  turning  aside  to  the  right 
hand  or  to  the  left,  is,  at  least,  the  sincere  intention  of  the  above 
propositions. 

It  remains  with  our  brethren  now  to  say,  how  far  they  go 
toward  answering  this  intention.  Do  they  exhibit  truths  demon¬ 
strably  evident  in  the  light  of  Scripture  and  right  reason,  so  that 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union  9? 


to  deny  any  part  of  them  the  contrary  assertion  would  be  manifestly 
absurd  and  inadmissible?  Considered  as  a  preliminary  for  the 
above  purpose,  are  they  adequate,  so  that  if  acted  upon,  they 
would  infallibly  lead  to  the  desired  unity,  and  secure  it  when 
in  either  of  these  respects,  let  them  be  corrected  and  amended, 
till  they  become  sufficiently  evident,  adequate,  and  unexceptionable. 
In  the  meantime,  let  them  be  examined  with  rigor,  with  all  the 
rigor  that  justice,  candor,  and  charity  will  admit. 

The  Multitude  no  Authority 

If  we  have  mistaken  the  way,  we  shall  be  glad  to  be  set  right ; 
but  if,  in  the  meantime,  we  have  been  happily  led  to  suggest 
obvious  and  undeniable  truths,  which,  if  adopted  and  acted  upon, 
would  infallibly  lead  to  the  desired  unity,  and  secure  it  wffien 
obtained,  we  hope  it  will  be  no  objection  that  they  have  not 
proceeded  from  a  General  Council.  It  is  not  the  voice  of  the 
multitude,  but  the  voice  of  truth,  that  has  power  with  the  con¬ 
science;  that  can  produce  rational  conviction  and  acceptable  obedi¬ 
ence.  A  conscience  that  awaits  the  decision  of  the  multitude,  that 
hangs  in  suspense  for  the  casting  vote  of  the  majority,  is  a  fit  sub¬ 
ject  for  the  man  of  sin.  This,  we  are  persuaded,  is  the  uniform 
sentiment  of  real  Christians  of  every  denomination.  Would  to  God 
that  all  professors  were  such,  then  should  our  eyes  soon  behold  the 
prosperity  of  Zion;  we  should  soon  see  Jerusalem  a  quiet  habitation. 

The  Motto  of  the  Restoration 

Union  in  truth  has  been,  and  ever  must  be,  the  desire  and  prayer 
of  all  such;  Union  in  Truth  is  our  motto.  The  Divine  word  is 
our  standard ;  in  the  Lord ’s  name  do  we  display  our  banners. 
Our  eyes  are  upon  the  promises,  ‘  ‘  So  shall  they  fear  the  name  of 
the  Lord  from  the  west,  and  his  glory  from  the  rising  of  the 
sun.  ”  “When  the  enemy  shall  come  in  like  a  flood,  the  Spirit 
of  the  Lord  shall  lift  up  a  standard  against  him.”  Our  humble 
desire  is  to  be  his  standard  bearers,  to  fight  under  Lis  banner,  and 
with  his  weapons,  ’  ’  which  are  not  carnal,  but  mighty  through  God  to 
the  pulling  down  of  strongholds ;  ‘ 1  even  all  of  these  strongholds 
of  division,  those  partition  walls  of  separation  which,  like  the 
walls  of  Jerico,  have  been  built  up,  as  it  were,  to  the  very  heavens, 
to  separate  God’s  people,  to  divide  his  flock  and  so  to  prevent  them 
from  entering  into  their  promised  rest,  at  least  in  so  far  as  it 
respects  this  world. 

An  enemy  hath  done  this,  but  he  shall  not  finally  prevail; 
‘ 1  for  the  meek  shall  inherit  the  earth,  and  shall  delight  themselves 
in  the  abundance  of  peace.”  “And  the  kingdom  and  dominion, 


98 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


even  the  greatness  of  the  kingdom  under  the  whole  heaven,  shall 
be  given  to  the  people  of  the  saints  of  the  Most  High,  and 
they  shall  possess  it  forever.  ’  ’  But  this  can  not  be  in  their 
present  broken  and  divided  state;  “for  a  kingdom  or  a  house 
divided  against  itself  cannot  stand ;  but  cometh  to  desolation.  ’  ’ 
Now  this  has  been  the  case  with  the  Church  for  a  long  time. 
However,  “the  Lord  will  not  cast  off  his  people,  neither  will  he 
forsake  his  heritage ;  but  judgement  shall  return  unto  righteous¬ 
ness,  and  all  the  upright  in  heart  shall  follow  it.  ”  To  all  such, 
and  such  alone,  are  our  expectations  directed.  Come,  then,  ye 
blessed  of  the  Lord,  we  have  your  prayers,  let  us  also  have  your 
actual  assistance.  What,  shall  we  pray  for  a  thing  and  not  strive 
to  obtain  it! 


Exhortation  to  Action 

We  call,  we  invite  you  again,  by  every  consideration  in  these 
premises.  You  that  are  near,  associate  with  us;  you  that  are  at 
too  great  a  distance,  associate  as  we  have  done.  Let  not  the 
paucity  of  your  number  in  any  given  district,  prove  an  insuperable 
discouragement.  Remember  Him  that  has  said,  “If  two  of  you 
shall  agree  on  earth  as  touching  anything  that  they  shall  ask, 
it  shall  be  done  for  them  of  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven;  for  where 
two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  there  am  I  in 
the  midst  of  them.  ’  ’  With  such  a  promise  as  this,  for  the  attain¬ 
ment  of  every  possible  and  promised  good,  there  is  no  room  for 
discouragement. 

Come  on  then,  “ye  that  fear  the  Lord;  keep  not  silence,  and 
give  him  no  rest  till  he  make  Jerusalem  a  joy  and  a  praise  in  the 
earth.  *  ’  Put  on  that  noble  resolution  dictated  by  the  prophet, 
saying,  “For  Zion’s  sake  will  we  not  hold  our  peace,  and  for 
Jerusalem’s  sake  we  will  not  rest,  until  the  righteousness  thereof 
go  forth  as  brightness,  and  the  salvation  thereof  as  a  lamp  that 
burnetii.  ’ 1 


The  Associational  Plan 

Thus  impressed,  you  will  find  means  to  associate,  at  such 
convenient  distances,  as  to  meet  at  least  once  a  month ;  to 
beseech  the  Lord  to  put  an  end  to  our  lamentable  divisions;  to 
heal  and  unite  his  people,  that  his  Church  may  resume  her  original 
constitutional  unity  and  purity,  and  thus  be  exalted  to  the  enjoy¬ 
ment  of  her  promised  prosperity,  that  the  Jews  may  be  speedily 
converted,  and  the  fullness  of  the  Gentiles  brought  in.  Thus 
associated,  you  will  be  in  a  capacity  to  investigate  the  evil  causes 
of  our  sad  divisions;  to  consider  and  bewail  their  pernicous  effects; 
and  to  mourn  over  them  before  the  Lord — who  hath  said :  “I 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


99 


■will  go  and  return  to  my  place,  till  they  acknowledge  their  offense 

and  seek  mv  face.  ’  ’ 

«/ 

Alas!  then,  what  reasonable  prospect  can  we  have  of  being 
delivered  from  those  sad  calamities,  which  have  so  long  afflicted 
the  Church  of  God ;  while  a  party  spirit,  instead  of  bewailing,  is 
everywhere  justifying,  the  bitter  principle  of  these  pernicious 
evils;  by  insisting  upon  the  right  of  rejecting  those,  however 
unexceptionable  in  other  respects,  who  cannot  see  with  them  in 
matters  of  private  opinion,  of  human  inference,  that  are  nowhere 
expressly  revealed  or  enjoined  in  the  word  of  God.  Thus  associated, 
will  the  friends  of  peace,  the  advocates  for  Christian  unity,  be  in 
a  capacity  to  connect  in  larger  circles,  where  several  of  those 
smaller  societies  may  meet  semi-annually  at  a  convenient  centre ; 
and  thus  avail  themselves  of  their  combined  exertions  for  promot¬ 
ing  the  interests  of  the  common  cause.  We  hope  that  many  of  the 
Lord's  ministers  in  all  places  will  volunteer  in  this  service,  foras¬ 
much  as  they  know  it  is  his  favorite  work,  the  very  desire  of 
his  soul. 


X.  COMMENT  UPON  THE  ABOVE 

THE  Declaration  ancl  Address  was  not  regarded  by  its 
author  as  a  fixed  or  infallible  platform  for  Christian 
Union.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  primarily  intended  to 
clear  the  way  for  some  more  hopeful  program  than  the 
religious  outlook  presented  when  it  was  written.  Mr. 
Campbell  says  that  the  sincere  intention  of  his  proposi¬ 
tions  is  simply  “to  prepare  the  way  for  a  permanent 
scriptural  unity  amongst  Christians  by  calling  up  to 
their  consideration  fundamental  truths,  directing  their 
attention  to  first  principles,  clearing  the  way  before 
them  by  removing  the  stumbling  blocks — the  rubbish  of 
ages  which  has  been  thrown  upon  it.” 

There  is  nothing  in  all  this  to  indicate  that  the  author 
wished  to  assume  any  air  of  infallibility  of  inerrancy. 
He  makes  his  appeal  simply  to  the  common  sense,  or  as 
he  calls  it  “the  right  reason,”  of  Christians  everywhere 
and  asserts  his  entire  willingness  to  adopt  some  other 
program  if  his  own  tentative  suggestions  should  not  be 
able  to  stand  the  test.  At  best,  he  regards  his  platform 
as  only  “preliminary”  and  covets  discussion  and  criti- 


100 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


cism.  He  says  that  if  his  work  is  defective  either  from 
the  point  of  view  of  its  adequacy  or  its  complete  ration¬ 
ality  that  it  should  be  “ corrected  and  amended”  until 
it  becomes  “sufficiently  evident,  adequate  and  unex¬ 
ceptionable.”  In  all  this  there  is  the  manifestation  of 
that  scientific  temper  which  has  always  characterized 
the  Disciple  movement  at  its  best. 

Restoration  advocates  have  doubtless  understressed 
the  mystical  element  in  religion,  but  there  is  no  Church 
in  Christendom  which  in  its  fundamental  genius  and 
character  is  more  closely  allied  to  the  scientific  spirit. 
It  is  this  fact  which,  in  the  judgment  of  the  writer,  gives 
the  greatest  promise  for  its  future.  The  scientific  ma¬ 
terialists,  on  the  one  side,  and  the  dogmatic  tradition¬ 
alists,  on  the  other,  both  have  their  faces  set  toward  de¬ 
struction.  The  religion  which  both  the  present  and  the 
future  demands  must  be  one  which  in  the  spirit  of  the 
real  scientist  seeks  the  truth  hand  in  hand  with  honest 
investigation,  to  the  end  that  humanity  may  find  the 
perfect  freedom  of  the  sons  of  God.  Thomas  Campbell 
manifests  precisely  this  spirit  when  he  asks  that  his  pro¬ 
gram  shall  be  examined  with  rigor,  “with  all  the  rigor 
that  justice,  candor  and  charity  will  admit.” 

The  question  of  authority  comes  up  again  in  the 
rather  ironical  reference  to  the  idea  that  his  propo¬ 
sitions  should  not  be  discounted  because  “they  have  not 
proceeded  from  a  General  Council.”  According  to  the 
old  Catholic  view,  infallibility  rested  with  the  decisions 
of  the  General  Councils.  Later  this  doctrine  was  some¬ 
what  modified,  at  least  in  practice,  by  the  inclusion  of 
the  Pope  as  a  sharer  in  the  burden  of  infallibility.  By 
the  decrees  of  the  Vatican  council  of  the  last  century, 
infallibility  was  vested  in  the  Pope  alone  so  that  there 
would  appear  to  be  no  more  necessity  for  the  Roman 
Church  to  call  a  General  Council,  unless  such  action 
should  be  taken  as  a  matter  of  expediency  on  the  part 
of  the  Vatican  itself. 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


101 


Thomas  Campbell,  in  the  spirit  of  the  Eeformation, 
appeals  from  the  ecclesiastical  decisions  of  popes  and 
cardinals  to  what  he  considers  the  more  certain  infallibil¬ 
ity  of  the  common  mind  as  the  latter  is  found  embodied  in 
the  Christian  thought  of  the  church  membership  as  a 
whole.  Truth  is  truth  with  him  whether  it  proceeds 
from  a  council  or  from  a  parish  priest.  Moreover,  the 
only  test  of  truth  is  its  universal  acceptance  by  right 
thinking  people  everywhere.  In  taking  this  position, 
he  is  not  asserting  the  infallibility  of  numbers.  He 
says  very  distinctly  “it  is  not  the  voice  of  the  multi¬ 
tude,  but  the  voice  of  truth  that  can  produce  rational 
conviction  and  acceptable  obedience.”  The  common 
mind,  the  universal  reason,  is  not  always  incarnate  in 
the  prejudiced  and  turbulent  mass  of  humanity.  It  is, 
however,  always  present  in  the  thoughtful  consensus  of 
the  majority  of  intelligent,  candid,  and  honest  seekers 
after  truth.  These  are  the  people  whom  Mr.  Campbell 
stvles  “real  Christians  of  every  denomination.”  He  is 
perfectly  willing  to  submit  his  case  to  this  sort  of  jury. 
He  submits  it  with  all  the  more  confidence  because  he 
feels  assured  that  truth  has  no  ground  for  fearing  such 
a  test  and  it  is  truth  alone  which  he  seeks. 

At  bottom,  it  may  be  said  that  there  is  not,  after  all, 
very  much  difference  between  this  idea  of  authority  and 
the  theory  which  vests  infallibility  in  a  General  Council. 
A  General  Council  ought  to  be  made  up  of  just  the  type 
of  people  to  whom  Thomas  Campbell  is  making  his  ap¬ 
peal.  AVere  this  the  truth,  no  objection  could  be  taken 
to  the  Council.  Unfortunately,  however,  as  so  many 
honest  Catholics  themselves  have  admitted,  candid  seek¬ 
ers  after  truth  are  the  last  people  who  gain  admission 
to  the  ecclesiastical  tribunals.  The  voice  of  “right  rea¬ 
son”  must  be  sought  for  elsewhere.  It  is  this  voice  to 
which  the  author  of  the  Declaration  and  Address  ap¬ 
peals.  “Union  in  Truth,”  he  says,  is  his  motto.  More¬ 
over,  he  broadcasts  this  motto  “In  the  Lord’s  Name.” 
This  attitude  is  far  removed  from  the  idea  of  compro- 


102 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


mise  which,  as  we  have  noted  elsewhere,  is  vaguely 
hinted  as  a  possible  ground  of  union  in  an  earlier  sec¬ 
tion  of  The  Declaration. 

After  all,  Thomas  Campbell’s  motto  remains  about 
the  last  word  on  the  subject.  Any  union  not  founded 
upon  truth  must  obviously  come  to  naught.  Moreover, 
the  only  way  to  discover  truth  is  by  that  frank  and 
candid  appeal  to  the  common  reason  which  theologians, 
like  Mr.  Campbell,  and  scientists,  like  Newton  and  Kel¬ 
vin,  have  always  regarded  as  the  ultimate  touchstone. 
In  a  somewhat  blundering  sort  of  fashion,  the  ecclesias¬ 
tical  leaders  of  the  world  are  slowly  heading  toward  the 
same  position.  The  proposed  World  Conference  on 
Faith  and  Order  and  other  similar  gatherings  represent 
efforts  in  this  direction.  The  value  of  such  gatherings 
lies  in  their  educational  emphasis.  The  only  way  to 
bring  the  common  mind  of  Christians  to  bear  directly 
upon  the  great  issues  involved  in  the  problem  of  Chris¬ 
tian  union  is  by  gradual  educational  enlightenment. 
The  process  is  slow  and  laborious  but  it  is  the  only  course 
which  promises  permanent  results.  The  unity  of  the 
Scriptures  and  the  unity  which  Thomas  Campbell  ad¬ 
vocated  is  one  based  upon  the  bedrock  of  truth  as  dis¬ 
cerned  and  recognized  by  the  right  reason  of  Christians 
of  all  lands  and  in  all  parties. 

The  latter  part  of  The  Declaration  reads  a  great  deal 
like  a  sermon.  We  usually  think  of  the  Campbells  as 
reserved  and  without  especial  emotional  appeal.  Alex¬ 
ander  Campbell  himself  rarely  made  a  gesture  while 
speaking  and  depended  almost  entirely  upon  his  superb 
command  of  language  and  thought  in  order  to  secure 
the  results  he  desired.  The  concluding  sections  of  the 
Declaration  and  Address,  however,  possess  the  quality 
of  an  exhortation.  Thomas  Campbell  appeals,  exhorts, 
quotes  Scripture,  beseeches,  does  in  fact  everything  that 
Wesley  or  Whitefield  might  have  been  supposed  to  do 
under  similar  circumstances.  He  invites  those  who  are 
near  to  join  the  Washington  County  Association  and 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


103 


those  who  are  farther  off  to  organize  similar  associations 
of  their  own.  These  organizations  are  to  meet  monthly 
in  order  to  pray  and  to  plan  for  Christian  union. 

Looking  at  the  situation  today,  after  the  lapse  of  a 
century,  we  are  constrained  to  say  that  these  invita¬ 
tions  and  exhortations  deserved  better  success  than  they 
achieved.  Very  few  people  joined  the  Washington 
County  Association  and  practically  no  other  associations 
were  ever  organized.  Far-reaching  as  the  Declaration 
and  Address  has  proved  in  its  later  influence,  it  fell  al¬ 
most  unheeded  upon  the  religious  life  of  its  day.  People 
did  not  take  the  trouble  to  criticize  it  or  oppose  it  for 
the  simple  reason  that  nobody  read  it.  This,  however, 
has  been  the  lot  of  some  of  the  greatest  books  in  the 
world,  Kant’s  Critique  of  Pure  Reason,  the  Magna  Charta 
of  modem  philosophy,  among  the  rest  of  them.  Works 
which  are  ephemerally  popular  are  soon  forgotten. 
Works  that  are  too  thoughtful  and  significant  to  catch 
the  popular  eye  live  on.  The  Declaration  and  Address 
still  lives. 

One  wonders  whether  the  plan  suggested  in  the  Decla¬ 
ration  and  Address  might  not  still  be  a  worth  while 
suggestion  for  the  Christian  world.  If  “our  brethren  of 
all  denominations  would  meet  at  least  once  a  month  to 
beseech  the  Lord  to  put  an  end  to  our  lamentable  divi¬ 
sions,  to  heal  and  unite  his  people,  that  his  church  may 
resume  her  original  constitutional  unity  and  purity”  it 
might  be  a  good  thing.  Such  meetings  would  probably 
do  more  good  than  a  host  of  ecclesiastical  conferences 
on  the  part  of  the  “higher  ups.”  Christian  union,  wThen 
it  comes,  must  come  from  the  bottom  and  not  from  the 
top.  Thomas  Campbell  proposed  to  start  in  the  right 
way,  that  is  with  the  local  group.  It  has  long  been  the 
opinion  of  the  writer  that  the  rank  and  file  of  most  of 
the  Protestant  denominations  would  welcome  this  sort 
of  getting  together  if  their  leaders  would  consent  to 
them.  Such  simplicity,  however,  does  not  appeal  to  the 


104 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


ecclesiastical  mind.  Only  “duly  accredited’’  officers  of 
distinction,  bishops,  or  other  dignitaries  dare  meet  to¬ 
gether  to  confer  about  unity.  If  the  common  folk  were 
to  get  together,  something  might  happen.  There  is  no 
danger  that  anything  will  ever  happen  with  the  ecclesi¬ 
astics.  There  are  too  many  fences  to  be  kept  intact, 
too  many  offices  to  be  safeguarded,  too  many  jealousies 
and  prejudices  that  dare  not  be  dropped.  The  common 
people  would  think  of  none  of  these  things  and  would, 
therefore,  be  in  a  position  to  unite,  but  the  common  peo¬ 
ple  never  get  together.  Thomas  Campbell  appealed  to 
the  clergy.  He  knew  that  he  had  to  reach  the  lay  mind 
through  them.  We  know  that,  too,  as  the  result  of  much 
experience,  and  we  also  know  that  Thomas  Campbell’s 
appeal  has  been  largely  in  vain. 

All  through  the  Declaration  and  Address  there  is  a 
splendid  commingling  of  the  two  principles  of  freedom 
and  unity  which  represent  the  two  hemispheres  of  a 
real  catholic  Christianity.  The  author  pleads  for  free¬ 
dom  “in  matters  of  private  opinion”  and  “of  human 
inference”  at  all  times.  He  does  emphasize  the  absolute 
authority  of  the  divine  word  but  he  also  admits  the 
principle  of  human  reason  as  its  only  interpreter.  In 
all  matters  where  the  universal  reason  does  not  agree 
and  thereby  secure  unanimity,  he  is  sure  that  freedom 
is  required  and  must  be  given.  Upon  this  platform  there 
would  seem  to  be  no  reason  why  unitv  should  not  be 
achieved.  Upon  essentials,  right  reason  will  always  give 
unanimity.  Where  such  reason  fails  to  secure  agree- 
ment,  it  is  obvious  that  we  are  dealing  with  non-essen¬ 
tials.  In  the  nature  of  the  case,  therefore,  there  ought 
to  be  no  insuperable  obstacle  in  the  way  to  union.  Theo¬ 
retically,  there  is  none.  Practically,  as  we  have  discov¬ 
ered  by  sad  experience,  the  obstacles  are  innumerable. 
Satan  hindered  Paul  when  he  wanted  to  visit  the  Church 
at  Thessalonica  in  order  to  unify  and  encourage  their 
work.  Satan  still  hinders  the  process  of  unification  and 
encouragement. 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


105 


There  is  something  about  the  very  insistency  of 
Thomas  Campbell’s  appeal  to  the  clergy  which  causes 
one  to  feel  that  he  was  not  altogether  sure  of  his  con¬ 
fidence  in  them.  Some  of  the  expressions  are  so  strong 
as  almost  to  appear  ironical.  Of  course  there  is  not  the 
slightest  ground  for  believing  that  there  is  even  a  touch 
of  sarcasm  in  the  words.  Certainly  there  could  have 
been  no  such  thing  in  the  mind  of  the  author.  It  is  a 
peculiar  commentary  upon  the  failure  of  Christ’s  minis¬ 
ters  in  the  all-important  matter  of  promoting  union  that 
we  can  scarcely  read  these  words  today  without  giving 
them  an  ironical  emphasis. 

XI.  TEXT  OF  THE  DECLARATION 

Earnest  Appeal  to  the  Clergy. — Ye  lovers  of  Jesu9,  and  beloved  of 
him,  however  scattered  in  this  cloudy  and  dark  day,  ye  love  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus;  (if  our  hearts  deceive  us  not)  so  do  we.  Ye 
desire  union  in  Christ,  'with  all  them  that  love  him;  so  do  we.  Ye 
lament  and  bewail  our  divisions;  so  do  we.  Ye  reject  the  doctrines 
and  commandments  of  men  that  ye  may  keep  the  law  of  Christ; 
so  do  we.  Ye  believe  the  alone  sufficiency  of  his  word;  so  do  we. 
Ye  believe  that  the  word  itself  ought  to  be  our  rule  and  not  any 
human  explication  of  it ;  so  do  we.  Ye  believe  that  no  man  has  a 
right  to  judge,  to  exclude,  or  reject,  his  professing  Christian  broth¬ 
er;  except  in  so  far  as  he  stands  condemned,  or  rejected,  by  the 
express  letter  of  the  law;  so  de  we.  Ye  believe  that  the  greatest 
fundamental  law  of  unity  and  love  ought  not  to  be  violated  to  make 
way  for  exalting  human  opinions  to  an  equality  with  express  revela¬ 
tion,  by  making  them  articles  of  faith  and  terms  of  communion;  so 
do  we.  Ye  sincere  and  impartial  followers  of  Jesus,  friends  of 
truth  and  peace,  we  dare  not,  we  cannot,  think  otherwise  of  you; 
it  would  be  doing  violence  to  your  character;  it  would  be  incon¬ 
sistent  with  your  prayers  and  profession,  so  to  do.  We  shall  there¬ 
fore  have  your  hearty  concurrence. 

But  if  any  of  our  dear  brethren,  from  whom  we  should  expect 
better  things,  should,  through  weakness  or  prejudice,  be  in  any¬ 
thing  otherwise  minded,  than  we  have  ventured  to  suppose,  we  char¬ 
itably  hope,  that,  in  due  time,  God  will  reveal  even  this  unto  them: 
Only  let  such  neither  refuse  to  come  to  the  light;  nor  yet  through 
prejudice,  reject  it,  when  it  shines  upon  them.  Let  them  rather 
seriously  consider  what  we  have  thus  most  seriously  and  respectfully 
submitted  to  their  consideration,  weigh  every  sentiment  in  the  bal¬ 
ance  of  the  sanctuary,  as  in  the  sight  of  God,  with  earnest  prayer 


106 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


for,  and  humble  reliance  upon  his  spirit;  and  not  in  the  spirit  of 
self-sufficiency  and  party  zeal,  and,  in  so  doing,  we  rest  assured, 
the  consequence  will  be  happy,  both  for  their  own,  and  the  church’s 
peace. 

No  Personal  Superiority  Claimed. — Let  none  imagine,  that  in  so 
saying,  we  arrogate  to  ourselves  a  degree  of  intelligence  superior 
to  our  brethren,  much  less  superior  to  mistake;  so  far  from  this, 
our  confidence  is  entirely  founded  upon  the  express  Scripture  and 
matter  of  fact  evidence,  of  the  things  referred  to ;  which  may  never¬ 
theless,  through  inattention,  or  prejudice,  fail  to  produce  their  prop¬ 
er  effect;  as  has  been  the  case,  with  respect  to  some  of  the  most 
evident  truths,  in  a  thousand  instances.  But  charity  thinketh  no 
evil:  and  we  are  far  from  surmising,  though  we  must  speak.  To 
warn  even  against  possible  evils,  is  certainly  no  breach  of  charity, 
as  to  be  confident  of  the  certainty  of  some  things,  is  no  just  ar¬ 
gument  of  presumption.  We  by  no  means  claim  the  approbation 
of  our  brethren,  as  to  anything  we  have  suggested  for  promoting 
the  sacred  cause  of  Christian  unity;  farther  than  it  carries  its  own 
evidence  along  with  it ;  but  we  humbly  claim  a  fair  investigation 
of  the  subject ;  and  solicit  the  assistance  of  our  brethren  for  carry¬ 
ing  into  effect  what  we  have  thus  weakly  attempted.  It  is  our  con¬ 
solation,  in  the  meantime,  that  the  desired  event,  as  certain  as  it 
will  be  happy  and  glorious,  admits  of  no  dispute;  however  we  may 
hesitate,  or  differ,  about  the  proper  means  of  promoting  it. 

The  Only  Hopeful  Platform  for  Unity. — All  we  shall  venture  to 
say  as  to  this,  is  that  we  trust  we  have  taken  the  proper  ground,  at 
least,  if  we  have  not,  we  despair  of  finding  it  elsewhere.  For  if 
holding  fast  in  profession  and  practice  whatever  is  expressly  re¬ 
vealed  and  enjoined  in  the  divine  standard  does  not  under  the 
promised  influence  of  the  divine  spirit,  prove  an  adequate  basis 
for  promoting  and  maintaining  unity,  peace  and  purity,  we  utterly 
despair  of  attaining  those  invaluable  privileges,  by  adopting  the 
standard  of  any  party.  To  advocate  the  cause  of  unity  while  es¬ 
pousing  the  interests  of  a  party  would  appear  as  absurd,  as  for 
this  country  to  take  part  with  either  of  the  belligerents  in  the  pres¬ 
ent  awful  struggle,  which  has  convulsed  and  is  convulsing  the 
nations,  in  order  to  maintain  her  neutrality  and  secure  her  peace. 
Nay,  it  would  be  adopting  the  very  means,  by  which  the  bewildered 
Church  has,  for  hundreds  of  years  past,  been  rending  and  dividing 
herself  into  fractions;  for  Christ’s  sake  and  for  the  truth’s  sake; 
though  the  first  and  foundation  truth  of  our  Christianity  is  union 
with  him,  and  the  very  next  to  it  in  order,  union  with  each  other 
in  him — “that  we  receive  each  other,  as  Christ  has  also  received 
us ;  to  the  glory  of  God ;  ”  “  And  this  is  the  commandment  that  we 
should  believe  in  the  name  of  his  son  Jesus  Christ,  and  love  one 
another,  as  he  gave  us  commandment.  And  he  that  keepeth  his 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


107 


commandments  dwelleth  in  him,  and  he  in  him — and  hereby  we  know 
that  he  dwelleth  in  us,  by  the  spirit  which  he  hath  given  us  ’  ’ — 
even  the  spirit  of  faith,  and  of  love,  and  of  a  sound  mind.  And 
surely  this  should  suffice  us. 

Closed  Communion  Uiihrotherly. — But  how  to  love,  and  receive 
our  brother;  as  we  believe  and  hope  Christ  has  received  both  him 
and  us,  and  yet  refuse  to  hold  communion  with  him,  is,  we  confess, 
a  mystery  too  deep  for  us.  If  this  be  the  way  that  Christ  hath 
received  us,  then  woe  is  unto  us.  We  do  not  here  intend  a  professed 
brother  transgressing  the  expressed  letter  of  the  law,  and  refusing 
to  be  reclaimed.  Whatever  may  be  our  charity  in  such  a  case, 
we  have  not  sufficient  evidence  that  Christ  hath  received  him,  or 
that  he  hath  received  Christ  as  his  teacher  and  Lord.  To  adopt 
means,  then,  apparently  subversive  of  the  very  end  proposed,  means 
which  the  experience  of  ages  has  evinced  successful  only  in  over¬ 
throwing  the  visible  interests  of  Christianity;  in  counteracting, 
as  far  as  possible,  the  declared  intention,  the  expressed  command 
of  its  Divine  Author;  would  appear  in  no  wise  a  prudent  measure 
for  removing  and  preventing  those  evils. 

To  maintain  unity  and  purity  has  always  been  the  plausible  pre¬ 
tence  of  the  compilers  and  abettors  of  human  systems;  and  we 
believe  in  many  instances  their  sincere  intention :  but  have  they  at 
all  answered  the  end?  Confessedly,  demonstrably,  they  have  not — 
no,  not  even  in  the  several  parties  which  have  most  strictly  adopted 
them— much  less  to  the  catholic  professing  body.  Instead  of  her 
catholic  constitutional  unity  and  purity,  what  does  the  church  pre¬ 
sent  us  with,  at  this  day,  but  a  catalogue  of  sects  and  sectarian 
systems;  each  binding  its  respective  party  by  the  most  sacred  and 
solemn  engagements,  to  continue  as  it  is  to  the  end  of  the  world ; 
at  least  this  is  confessedly  the  case  with  many  of  them.  What  a 
sorry  substitute  these,  for  Christian  unity  and  love.  On  the  other 
hand,  what  a  mercy  is  it,  that  no  human  obligation  that  man  can 
come  under  is  valid  against  the  truth. 

The  Better  Day  to  Be. — When  the  Lord  the  healer,  descends  upon 
his  people,  to  give  them  a  discovery  of  the  nature  and  tendency 
of  those  artificial  bonds,  wherewith  they  have  suffered  themselves 
to  be  bound,  in  their  dark  and  sleepy  condition:  they  will  no  more 
be  able  to  hold  them  in  a  state  of  sectarian  bondage;  than  the 
withs  and  cords  with  which  the  Philistines  bound  Sampson  were 
able  to  retain  him  their  prisoner ;  or,  than  the  bonds  of  anti-Christ 
were,  to  hold  in  captivity  the  fathers  of  the  reformation. 

May  the  Lord  soon  open  the  eyes  of  his  people  to  see  these  things 
in  their  true  light  and  excite  them  to  come  up  out  of  their  wilder¬ 
ness  condition — out  of  this  babel  of  confusion — leaning  upon  their 
beloved,  and  embracing  each  other  in  him;  holding  fast  the  unity 
of  the  spirit  in  the  bonds  of  peace.  This  gracious  duty  and  una¬ 
nimity  in  Jesus  would  afford  the  best  external  evidence  of  their  union 


108 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


with  him;  and  of  their  conjoint  interest  in  the  Father’s  love.  “By 
tills  shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are  my  disciples,”  saith  he,  “if 
ye  have  love  one  to  another.”  And  “this  is  my  commandment 
that  ye  love  one  another  as  I  have  loved  you;  that  ye  also  love  one 
another.  ’  ’  And  again,  1  ‘  Holy  Father,  keep  through  thine  own  name, 
those  whom  thou  hast  given  me  that  they  may  be  one  as  we  are,” 
even  “all  that  shall  believe  in  me — that  they  all  may  be  one;  as 
thou  Father  art  in  me  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one 
in  us;  that  the  world  may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me.  And 
the  glory  which  thou  gavest  me;  I  have  given  them,  that  they  may 
be  one,  even  as  we  are  one:  I  in  them  and  thou  in  me,  that  they 
may  be  made  perfect  in  me;  and  that  the  world  may  know  that 
thou  hast  sent  me,  and  hast  loved  them,  as  thou  hast  loved  me.” 
May  the  Lord  hasten  it  in  his  time.  Farewell. 

Peace  be  with  all  them  that  love  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  sin¬ 
cerity.  Amen. 


Thomas  Campbell,  Secretary, 
Thomas  Acheson,  Treasurer. 


XII.  COMMENT  UPON  THE  ABOVE 
HE  concluding  section  of  The  Declaration  and  Ad- 


1  dress  presents  no  new  note  of  argument  but  does  in¬ 
tensify  the  plea  for  a  fair  hearing,  urged  earlier  in  the 
document.  The  author  pleads  earnestly  with  his  brethren 
for  an  impartial  attitude  on  the  part  of  those  who  cannot 
immediately  agree  with  him.  He  is  again  careful  to  claim 
no  personal  superiority  for  himself,  resting  his  case  en¬ 
tirely,  as  before,  upon  an  appeal  to  the  “right  reason” 
of  his  brethren.  He  has  no  fear  but  that  his  message 
will  prevail  unless  “through  inattention  or  prejudice” 
his  words  “fail  to  produce  their  proper  effect.”  He  has 
supreme  confidence  in  the  substantial  unanimity  of  the 
decisions  of  reason  when  the  voice  of  the  latter  can  be 
fairly  invoked.  If  for  any  reason  his  conclusions  should 
fail  to  stand  the  test,  he  wants  it  understood  that  he  is 
perfectly  willing  to  give  them  up.  His  attitude  here, 
and  elsewhere  throughout  The  Declaration,  is  precisely 
that  of  the  honest  seeker  for  truth  in  any  department  of 
science.  Huxley  himself  could  have  asked  for  nothing 
fairer  than  such  a  proposition.  Doubtless  the  followers 
of  Thomas  Campbell  have  not  always  understood  or  ob- 


The  Necessity  for  Christian  Union 


109 


served  this  underlying  principle  of  his  plea.  Neverthe¬ 
less  the  writer  believes  it  is  fair  to  say  that  the  genius 
of  their  movement  has,  at  all  times,  embodied  this  ideal 
and  still  embodies  it  to  a  degree  not  often  appreciated. 

The  new  platform  for  unity  appears  to  its  author  to 
be  infinitely  more  hopeful  than  any  other  proposition 
before  the  Christian  world.  It  is  well  to  remember  that 
at  this  time  there  was  no  other  proposition  available 
aside  from  the  invitation  to  complete  surrender  and  sub¬ 
mission  held  out  by  all  the  competing  parties.  Any  or 
all  of  these  invitations  look  quite  as  hopeless  today  as 
they  did  a  century  ago.  If  we  must  wait  for  unity  until 
some  one  of  the  present  denominations  or  parties  in 
Christendom  swallows  all  of  the  others,  we  shall  doubt¬ 
less  wait  a  long  time.  It  was  the  fear  of  adding  another 
party  to  the  already  too  numerous  parties  which  held 
back  the  Campbells  from  any  definite  attempt  at  organ¬ 
izational  propaganda  for  two  decades. 

The  parallel  between  the  divided  Church  and  the  war¬ 
fare  of  the  nations  during  the  Napoleonic  period  was 
evidently  as  appealing  when  The  Declaration  and  Ad¬ 
dress  was  written  as  is  a  similar  parallel  with  the  World 
War  of  1914  todav.  Probablv  the  conclusion  drawn  by 
Mr.  Campbell  holds  good  for  the  present  also.  World 
peace,  like  religious  peace,  can  never  be  secured  by  par¬ 
tisan  struggle.  Onlv  in  the  ordered  and  harmonious 
adjustment  of  relations  as  a  whole  can  the  goal  be 
achieved.  Nationalism  in  politics  and  denominational- 
ism  in  religion  were  born  together  and  must  die  together 
before  unity  arrives  in  the  world  field. 

In  the  very  last  section  of  The  Declaration,  the  author 
touches  upon  the  historic  incident  which  was  the  occa¬ 
sion  of  the  document’s  production:  "How  to  love  and 
receive  our  brother;  as  we  believe  and  hope  Christ  has 
received  both  him  and  us,  and  yet  refuse  to  hold  com¬ 
munion  with  him,  is  we  confess  a  mystery  too  deep  for 
us.”  The  argument  in  these  words  is  conclusive.  If  the 


110 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


communion  table,  which  is  above  every  other  ordinance 
in  the  Christian  religion,  the  symbol  and  embodiment 
of  the  ideal  of  unity  and  brotherhood,  is  to  be  made  a 
means  of  perpetuating  division,  surely  the  gospel  is  per¬ 
verted  at  its  very  source.  It  wTas  the  criticism  of  his 
practicing  open  communion  which  led  Thomas  Campbell 
to  take  his  stand  in  behalf  of  Christian  union.  Whether 
he  would  have  taken  this  position  had  conditions  been 
less  aggravating,  one  cannot  say.  Beyond  any  question, 
upon  the  basis  of  Presbyterian  practice  at  the  present 
time,  he  might  have  lived  and  died  within  the  fold  of 
that  church.  Like  many  another  reform  movement,  the 
plea  of  the  Campbells  gathered  momentum  and  its  out¬ 
look  became  enlarged  as  its  independent  career  devel¬ 
oped.  Denominationalism  is  infinitely  less  bitter  today 
than  it  was  a  hundred  years  ago,  but  the  ideal  of  Chris¬ 
tian  union  is  still  far  away.  Were  the  elder  Campbell  to 
come  back,  we  feel  sure  that  he  would  regard  our  present 
situation  as  one  which  calls  for  the  proclamation  of  the 
divine  program  for  unity  quite  as  urgently  as  was 

true  in  his  own  dav. 

•/ 

The  last  words  of  The  Declaration  and  Address  are 
climactic  in  their  appropriateness  and  in  their  enduring 
value.  The  ultimate  test  of  discipleship  is  unity  through 
love.  The  ultimate  guarantee  of  power  for  the  church  is 
the  same  type  of  unity.  Whatever  we  may  think  of  the 
validity  of  Thomas  Campbell’s  program,  we  dare  not 
impeach  the  underlying  principles  which  dictated  its 
proclamation  and  wThich  still  give  power  to  its  message. 


PART  III 
THE  APPENDIX 


PAET  III — THE  APPENDIX 

I.  TEXT  OF  THE  APPENDIX  TO  THE  DECLARA¬ 
TION  AND  ADDRESS* 

TREASONS  for  Adding  the  Appendix.  To  prevent  mistakes,  we 
beg  leave  to  subjoin  the  following  explanations.  As  to  what 
■*-  we  have  done,  our  reasons  for  so  doing,  and  the  grand  object 
we  would  desire  to  see  accomplished,  all  these,  we  presume,  are 
sufficiently  declared  in  the  foregoing  pages.  As  to  what  we  intend 
to  do  in  our  associate  capacity,  though  expressly  and  definitely 
declared,  yet  these,  perhaps,  might  be  liable  to  some  misconstruction. 

No  Intention,  of  Proselyting.  First,  then,  we  beg  leave  to  assure 
our  brethren  that  we  have  no  intention  to  interfere,  either  directly 
or  indirectly,  with  the  peace  and  order  of  the  settled  Churches,  by 
directing  any  ministerial  assistance  with  which  the  Lord  may  please 
to  favor  us  to  make  inroads  upon  such ;  or  by  endeavoring  to  erect 
Churches  out  of  Churches,  to  distract  and  divide  congregations.  We 
have  no  nostrum,  no  peculiar  discovery  of  our  own  to  propose  to 
fellow-Christians,  for  the  fancied  importance  of  which  they  should 
become  followers  of  us.  We  propose  to  patronize  nothing  but  the 
inculcation  of  the  express  word  of  God,  either  as  to  matter  of  faith 
or  practice;  but  every  one  that  has  a  Bible,  and  can  read  it,  can 
read  this  for  himself.  Therefore,  we  have  nothing  new. 

Neither  do  we  pretend  to  acknowledge  persons  to  be  ministers 
of  Christ,  and,  at  the  same  time,  consider  it  our  duty  to  forbid 
or  discourage  people  to  go  to  hear  them,  merely  because  they  may 
hold  some  things  disagreeable  to  us;  much  less  to  encourage  their 
people  to  leave  them  on  that  account.  And  such  do  we  esteem  all 
who  preach  a  free,  unconditional  salvation  through  the  blood  of 
Jesus  to  perishing  sinners  of  every  description,  and  who  manifestly 
connect  with  this  a  life  of  holiness  and  pastoral  diligence  in  the 
performance  of  all  the  duties  of  the  sacred  office,  according  to  the 
Scriptures,  of  even  all  of  whom,  as  to  all  appearance,  it  may  be 
truly  said  to  the  objects  of  their  charge:  “They  seek  not  yours, 
but  you.”  May  the  good  Lord  prosper  all  such,  by  whatever  name 
they  are  called,  and  hasten  that  happy  period  when  Zion’s  watch¬ 
men  shall  see  eye  to  eye,  and  all  be  called  by  the  same  name. 
Such,  then,  have  nothing  to  fear  from  our  associations,  were 
our  resources  equal  to  our  utmost  wishes.  But  all  others  we  esteem 


*This  appendix  is  a  copy  of  the  original  writing  and  explanation 
which  was  attached  to  the  Declaration  and  Address. 


113 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


114 


a3  hirelings,  as  idle  shepherds,  and  should  be  glad  to  see  the  Lord’s 
flock  delivered  from  their  mouth,  according  to  his  promise.  Our 
principal  and  proper  design,  then,  with  respect  to  ministerial  as¬ 
sistants,  such  as  we  have  described  in  our  fifth  resolution,  is  to 
direct  their  attention  to  those  places  where  there  is  manifest  need 
for  their  labors;  and  many  such  places  there  are;  would  to 
God  it  were  in  our  power  to  supply  them. 

Attitude  on  Creeds. — As  to  creeds  and  confessions,  although  we 
may  appear  to  our  brethren  to  oppose  them,  yet  this  is  to  be  un¬ 
derstood  only  in  so  far  as  they  oppose  the  unity  of  the  Church, 
by  containing  sentiments  not  expressly  revealed  in  the  word  of 
God;  or,  by  the  way  of  using  them,  become  the  instruments  of  a 
human  or  implicit  faith,  or  oppress  the  weak  of  God’s  heritage. 
'Where  they  are  liable  to  none  of  these  objections,  we  have  noth¬ 
ing  against  them.  It  is  the  abuse  and  not  the  lawful  use  of  such 
complications  that  we  oppose.  See  Proposition  7,  page  50. 

Our  intention,  therefore,  with  respect  to  all  the  Churches  of 
Christ  is  perfectly  amicable.  We  heartily  wish  their  reformation, 
but  by  no  means  their  hurt  or  confusion.  Should  any  affect  to 
say  that  our  coming  forward  as  we  have  done,  in  advancing  and 
publishing  such  things,  has  a  manifest  tendency  to  distract  and 
divide  the  Churches,  or  to  make  a  new  party,  we  treat  it  as  a  con¬ 
fident  and  groundless  assertion,  and  must  suppose  they  have  not 
duly  considered,  or,  at  least,  not  well  understood  the  subject. 

Not  a  New  Party.  All  we  shall  say  to  this  at  present,  is,  that 
the  Divine  word  be  not  the  standard  of  a  party,  then  are  we  not 
a  party  principle,  then  are  we  not  a  party,  for  we  have  adopted 
no  other.  If  to  maintain  its  alone  sufficiency  be  not  a  party  prin¬ 
ciple,  then  are  we  not  a  party.  If  to  justify  this  principle  by 
our  practice,  in  making  a  rule  of  it,  and  of  it  alone,  and  not  of 
our  own  opinions,  nor  of  those  of  others,  be  not  a  party  principle, 
then  are  we  not  a  party.  If  to  propose  and  practice  neither  more 
nor  less  than  it  expressly  reveals  and  enjoying  be  not  a  partial 
business,  then  are  we  not  a  party.  These  are  the  very  sentiments 
we  have  approved  and  recommended  as  a  society  formed  for  the 
express  purpose  of  promoting  Christian  unity,  in  opposition  to  a 
party  spirit. 

Should  any  tell  us  that  to  do  these  things  is  impossible  with¬ 
out  the  intervention  of  human  reason  and  opinion,  we  humbly 
thank  them  for  the  discovery.  But  who  ever  thought  otherwise? 
Were  we  not  rational  subjects,  and  of  course  capable  of  under¬ 
standing  and  forming  opinions,  would  it  not  evidently  appear 
that,  to  us,  revelation  of  any  kind  would  be  quite  useless,  even 
suppose  it  as  evident  as  mathematics? 

We  pretend  not,  therefore,  to  divest  ourselves  of  reason,  that 
we  may  become  quite  inoffensive,  and  peaceable  Christians;  nor 
yet,  of  any  of  its  proper  and  legitimate  operations  upon  Divinely 
revealed  truths.  We  only  pretend  to  assert,  what  every  one  that 


The  Appendix 


115 


pretends  to  reason  must  acknowledge,  namely,  that  there  is  a  man¬ 
ifest  distinction  between  an  express  Scripture  declaration,  and  the 
conclusion  or  inference  which  may  be  deduced  from  it;  and  that  the 
former  may  be  clearly  understood,  even  where  the  latter  is  but  im¬ 
perfectly  if  at  all  perceived;  and  that  we  are  at  least  as  certain 
of  the  declaration  as  we  can  be  of  the  conclusion  we  drew  from 
it;  and  that,  after  all,  the  conclusion  ought  not  to  be  exalted 
above  the  premises,  so  as  to  make  void  the  declaration  for  the 
sake  of  setablishing  our  own  conclusion;  and  that,  therefore,  the 
express  commands  to  preserve  and  maintain  inviolate  Christian 
unity  and  love,  ought  not  to  be  set  aside  to  make  way  for  exalting 
our  inferences  above  the  express  authority  of  God. 

The  Only  Test  of  Fellowship — A  Thus  Saith  the  Lord.  Our  in¬ 
ference,  upon  the  whole,  is,  that  where  a  professing  Christian 
brother  opposes  or  refuses  nothing  either  in  faith  or  practice,  for 
which  there  can  be  expressly  produced  a  “Thus  saith  the  Lord,” 
that  we  ought  not  to  reject  him  because  he  cannot  see  with  our 
eyes  as  to  matters  of  human  inference,  of  private  judgment. 
“Through  thy  knowledge  shall  the  weak  brother  perish?  How 
walkest  thou  not  charitably?” 

Thus  we  reason,  thus  we  conclude,  to  make  no  conclusion  of 
our  own,  nor  of  any  other  fallible  fellow-creature,  a  rule  of  faith 
or  duty  to  our  brother.  Whether  we  refuse  reason,  then,  or  abuse 
it,  in  our  so  doing,  let  our  brethren  judge.  But,  after  all,  we 
have  only  ventured  to  suggest  what,  in  other  words,  the  apostle 
has  expressly  taught;  namely,  that  the  strong  ought  to  bear  with 
the  infirmities  of  the  weak,  and  not  to  please  themselves;  that  we 
ought  to  receive  him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith,  because  God  has  re¬ 
ceived  him.  In  a  word,  that  we  ought  to  receive  one  another,  as 
Christ  has  also  received  us  to  the  glory  of  God.  We  dare  not, 
therefore,  patronize  the  rejection  of  God’s  dear  children,  because 
they  may  not  be  able  to  see  alike  in  matters  of  human  inference — 
of  private  opinion;  and  such  we  esteem  all  things  not  expressly 
revealed  and  enjoined  in  the  word  of  God.  If  otherwise,  we 
know  not  what  private  opinion  means. 

The  Declaration  not  a  “Dock  of  Offence.”  On  the  other  hand 
should  our  peaceful  and  affectionate  overture  for  union  in  truth 
prove  offensive  to  any  of  our  brethren,  or  occasion  disturbances 
in  any  of  the  Churches,  the  blame  cannot  be  attached  to  us.  We 
have  only  ventured  to  persuade,  and,  if  possible,  to  excite  to  the 
performance  of  an  important  duty — a  duty  equally  incumbent 
upon  us  all.  Neither  have  we  pretended  to  dictate  to  them  what 
they  should  do.  We  have  only  proposed  what  appeared  to  us  most 
likely  to  promote  the  desired  event,  humbly  submitting  the  whole 
premises  to  their  candid  and  impartial  investigation,  to  be  altered, 
corrected,  and  amended,  as  they  see  cause,  or  to  adopt  any  other 
plan  that  may  appear  more  just  and  exceptionable. 

As  for  ourselves,  we  have  taken  all  due  care,  in  the  meantime, 


116 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


to  take  no  step  that  might  throw  a  stumbling-block  in  the  way, 
that  might  prove  now,  or  at  any  future  period,  a  barrier  to  prevent 
the  accomplishment  of  that  most  desirable  object,  either  by  join¬ 
ing  to  support  a  party,  or  by  patronizing  anything  as  articles 
of  faith  or  duty  not  expressly  enjoined  in  the  Divine  standard; 
as  we  are  sure,  whatever  alterations  may  take  place,  that  will 
stand.  That  considerable  alterations  must  and  will  take  place,  in 
the  standards  of  all  the  sects,  before  that  glorious  object  can 
be  accomplished,  no  man,  that  duly  considers  the  matter,  can 
possibly  doubt. 

In  so  far,  then,  we  have  at  least  endeavored  to  act  consistently; 
and  with  the  same  consistency  would  desire  to  be  instrumental  in 
erecting  as  many  Churches  as  possible  throughout  the  desolate 
places  of  God ’s  heritage,  upon  the  same  catholic  foundation,  being 
well  persuaded  that  every  such  erection  will  not  only  in  the  issue 
prove  an  accession  to  the  general  cause,  but  will  also,  in  the  mean¬ 
time,  be  a  step  toward  it,  and  of  course,  will  reap  the  first-fruits 
of  that  blissful  harvest  that  will  fill  the  face  of  the  world  with 
fruit.  For  if  the  first  Christian  Churches,  walking  in  the  fear  of 
the  Lord  in  holy  unity  and  unanimity,  enjoyed  the  comforts  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  were  increased  and  edified,  we  have  reason 
to  believe  that  walking  in  their  footsteps  will  everywhere  and  at 
all  times  insure  the  same  blessed  privileges.  And  it  is  in  exact 
conformity  to  their  recorded  and  approved  example,  that,  we 
through  grace,  would  be  desirous  to  promote  the  erection  of 
Churches;  and  this  we  believe  to  be  quite  practicable,  if  the  leg¬ 
ible  and  authentic  records  of  their  faith  and  practice  be  handed 
down  to  us  upon  the  page  of  New  Testament  Scripture;  but  if 
otherwise,  we  cannot  help  it. 

Suppose  the  New  Testament  Wrong ?  Yet,  even  in  this  case, 
might  we  not  humbly  presume  that  the  Lord  would  take  the  will 
for  the  deed?  for  if  there  be  first  a  willing  mind,  we  are  told, 
“it  is  accepted  according  to  what  a  man  hath,  and  not  according 
to  what  he  hath  not.  ’  ’ 

It  would  appear,  then,  that  sincerely  and  humbly  adopting  this 
model,  with  an  entire  reliance  upon  promised  grace,  we  cannot,  we 
shall  not,  be  disappointed.  By  this,  at  least,  we  shall  get  rid  of 
two  great  evils,  which,  we  fear,  are  a  this  day  greviously  provoking 
the  Lord  to  plead  a  controversy  with  the  Churches:  we  mean  the 
taking  and  giving  of  unjust  offenses;  judging  and  rejecting  each 
other  in  matters  wherein  the  Lord  hath  not  judged,  in  a  flat  con¬ 
tradiction  to  his  expressly  revealed  will.  But,  according  to  the 
principle  adopted,  we  can  neither  take  offense  at  our  brother  for 
his  private  opinions,  if  he  be  content  to  hold  them  as  such,  nor 
yet  offend  him  with  ours,  if  he  do  not  usurp  the  place  of  the 
lawgiver ;  and  even  suppose  he  should,  in  this  case  we  judge  him, 
not  for  his  opinions,  but  for  his  presumption.  “There  is  one  Law¬ 
giver,  who  is  able  to  save  and  to  destroy;  who  are  thou  that 
judgest  another? ” 


117 


The  Appendix 

But  further,  to  prevent  mistakes,  we  beg  leave  to  explain  our 
meaning  in  a  sentence  or  two  which  might  possibly  be  misunder¬ 
stood.  In  the  first  page  we  say,  that  no  man  has  a  right  to  judge 
his  brother,  except  in  so  far  as  he  manifestly  violates  the  express 
letter  of  the  law.  By  the  law  here,  and  elsewhere,  when  taken  in 
this  latitude,  we  mean  that  whole  revelation  of  faith  and  duty  ex¬ 
pressly  declared  in  the  Divine  word,  taken  together,  or  in  its  due 
connection,  upon  every  article,  and  not  any  detached  sentence.  We 
understand  it  as  extending  to  all  prohibitions,  as  well  as  to  all  re¬ 
quirements.  “Add  thou  not  unto  his  words,  lest  he  reprove  thee, 
and  thou  be  found  a  liar.”  We  dare,  therefore,  neither  do  nor 
receive  anything  as  of  Divine  obligation  for  which  there  cannot 
be  expressly  produced  a  “Thus  saith  the  Lord,”  either  in  express 
terms  are  by  approved  precedent.  According  to  this  rule  we  judge 
and  beyond  it  we  dare  not  go. 

Taking  this  sentiment  in  connection  with  the  last  clause  of  the 
fifth  resolution,  we  are  to  be  understood,  of  all  matters  of  faith 
and  practice,  of  primary  and  universal  obligation;  that  is  to  say, 
of  express  revelation;  that  nothing  be  inculcated,  as  such,  for 
which  there  cannot  be  expressly  produced  a  ‘ 1  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  ’  ’ 
as  above,  without,  at  the  same  time,  interfering  directly  or  in¬ 
directly  with  the  private  judgment  of  any  individual,  which  does 
not  expressly  contradict  the  express  letter  of  the  law,  or  add  to 
the  number  of  its  institutions.  Every  sincere  and  upright  Chris¬ 
tian  will  understand  and  do  the  will  of  God,  in  every  instance,  to 
the  best  of  his  skill  and  judgment;  but  in  the  application  of  the 
general  rule  to  particular  cases  there  may,  and  doubtless  will,  be 
some  variety  of  opinion  and  practice.  This,  we  see,  was  actually 
the  case  in  the  apostolic  Churches,  without  any  breach  of  Chris¬ 
tian  unity;  and  if  this  was  the  case  at  the  erection  of  the  Christian 
Church  from  among  Jews  and  Gentiles,  may  we  not  reasonably 
expect  that  it  will  be  the  same  at  her  restoration  from  under  her 
long  antichristian  and  sectarian  desolations? 

Union  by  Forbearance.  With  a  direct  reference  to  this  state  of 
things,  and,  as  we  humbly  think,  in  a  perfect  consistency  with  the 
foregoing  explanations,  have  we  expressed  ourselves  in  the  thirty- 
ninth  page,  wherein  we  declare  ourselves  ready  to  relinquish  what¬ 
ever  we  have  hitherto  received  as  matter  of  faith  or  practice,  not 
expressly  taught  and  enjoined  in  the  word  of  God,  so  that  we  and 
our  brethren  might,  by  this  mutual  concession,  return  to  gether 
to  the  original  constitutional  unity  of  the  Christian  Church,  and 
dwell  together  in  peace  and  charity.  By  this  proposed  relinquish¬ 
ment  we  are  to  be  understood,  in  the  first  instance,  of  our  manner 
of  holding  those  things,  and  not  simply  of  the  things  themselves; 
for  no  man  can  relinquish  his  opinions  or  practices  till  once  con¬ 
vinced  that  they  are  wrong;  and  this  he  may  not  be  immediately, 
even  supposing  they  were  so.  One  thing,  however,  he  may  do : 
when  not  bound  by  an  express  command,  he  need  not  impose  them 


118 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


upon  others,  by  anywise  requiring  their  approbation ;  and  when 
this  is  done,  the  tilings,  to  them,  are  as  good  as  dead,  yea,  as  good 
as  buried,  too,  being  thus  removed  out  of  the  way. 

Has  not  the  apostle  set  us  a  noble  example  of  tills  in  his  pious 
and  charitable  zeal  for  the  comfort  and  edification  of  his  brother, 
in  declaring  himself  ready  to  forego  his  rights  (not  indeed  to  break 
commandments)  rather  than  stumble,  or  offend,  his  brother?  And 
who  knows  not  that  the  Hebrew  Christians  abstained  from  certain 
meats,  observed  certain  days,  kept  the  passover,  circumcised  their 
children,  etc.,  etc.,  while  no  such  things  were  practiced  by  the 
Gentile  converts,  and  yet  no  breach  of  unity  while  they  charitably 
forebore  one  with  the  other.  But  had  the  Jews  been  expressly 
prohibited,  or  the  Gentiles  expressly  enjoined,  by  the  authority  of 
Jesus,  to  observe  these  things,  could  they,  in  such  a  case,  have  law¬ 
fully  exercised  this  forbearance?  But  where  no  express  law  is, 
there  can  be  no  formal,  no  intentional  transgression,  even  although 
its  implicit  and  necessary  consequences  had  forbid  the  thing,  had 
they  been  discovered. 

Upon  the  whole,  we  see  one  thing  is  evident:  the  Lord  will  bear 
with  the  weaknesses,  the  involuntary  ignorances,  and  mistakes  of 
his  people,  though  not  with  their  pesumption.  Ought  they  not, 
therefore,  to  bear  with  each  other — “to  preserve  the  unity  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace;  forbearing  one  with  another  in  love?” 
What  says  the  Scripture?  We  say,  then,  the  declaration  rf erred 
to  is  to  be  thus  understood  in  the  first  instance;  though  we  do  not 
say  but  something  further  is  intended.  For  certainly  we  may  law¬ 
fully  suspend  both  declaration  and  practice  upon  any  subject,  where 
the  law  is  silent ;  when  to  do  otherwise  must  prevent  the  accomplish¬ 
ment  of  an  expressly  commanded  and  highly  important  duty;  and 
such,  confessedly,  is  the  thing  in  question.  What  says  the  apostle? 
1 1  All  things  are  lawful  for  me ;  but  all  things  are  not  expedient. 
All  things  are  lawful  for  me;  but  all  things  edify  not.” 

It  seems,  then,  that  among  unlawful  things  which  might  be  for¬ 
borne — that  is,  we  humbly  conceive,  things  not  expressly  com¬ 
manded — the  governing  principle  of  the  apostle ’s  conduct  was  the 
edification  of  his  brethren  of  the  Church  of  God.  A  Divine  prin¬ 
ciple  this,  indeed!  May  the  Lord  God  infuse  it  into  all  his  people. 
Were  all  those  non-preceptive  opinions  and  practices  which  have 
been  maintained  and  exalted  to  the  destruction  of  the  Church’s 
unity,  counterbalanced  with  the  breach  of  the  express  law  of 
Christ,  and  the  black  catalogue  of  mischiefs  which  have  necessarily 
ensued,  on  which  side,  think  you,  would  be  the  preponderance? 
When  weighed  in  the  balance  with  this  monstrous  complex  evil, 
would  they  not  all  appear  lighter  than  vanity?  Who,  then,  would 
not  relinquish  a  cent  to  obtain  a  kingdom !  And  here  let  it  be  noted, 
that  it  is  not  the  renunciation  of  an  opinion  or  practice  as  sinful 
that  is  proposed  or  intended,  but  merely  a  cessation  from  the  pub¬ 
lishing  or  practicing  it,  so  as  to  give  offense;  a  thing  men  are  in 
the  habit  of  doing  every  day  for  their  private  comfort  or  secular 


The  Appendix 


119 


emolument,  where  the  advantage  is  of  infinitely  less  importance. 
Neither  is  there  here  any  clashing  of  duties,  as  if  to  forbear  was 
a  sin  and  also  to  practice  was  sin;  the  thing  to  be  forborne  being 
a  matter  of  private  opinion,  which,  though  not  expressly  forbid¬ 
den,  yet  are  we  by  no  means  expressly  commanded  to  practice; 
whereas  we  are  expressly  commanded  to  endeavor  to  maintain  the 
unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace.  And  what  says  the 
apostle  to  the  doing  in  hand?  “Hast  thou  faith, ’ 7  says  he;  “have 
it  to  thyself  before  God.  Happy  is  the  man  that  condemneth  not 
himself  in  the  thing  which  he  alloweth.” 

Advantage  of  Clearing  Away  Dead  Material.  It  may  be  further 
added,  that  a  still  higher  and  more  perfect  degree  of  uniformity 
is  intended,  though  neither  in  the  first  nor  second  instance,  which 
are  but  so  many  steps  toward  it ;  namely :  the  utter  abolition  of 
those  minor  differences,  which  have  been  greatly  increased,  as  well 
as  continued,  by  our  unhappy  manner  of  treating  them,  in  making 
them  the  subject  of  perpetual  strife  and  contention.  Many  of  the 
opinions  which  are  now  dividing  the  Church,  had  they  been  let 
alone,  would  have  been  long  since  dead  and  gone ;  but  the  constant 
insisting  upon  them,  as  articles  of  faith  and  terms  of  salvation, 
have  so  beaten  them  into  the  minds  of  men,  that,  in  many  instances, 
they  would  as  soon  deny  the  Bible  itself  as  give  up  one  of  those 
opinions.  Having  thus  embraced  contentions  and  preferred  di¬ 
visions  to  that  constitutional  unity,  peace,  and  charity  so  essential 
to  Christianity,  it  would  appear  that  the  Lord,  in  righteous  judg¬ 
ment,  has  abandoned  his  professing  people  to  the  awHul  scourge  of 
those  evils;  as,  in  an  instance  somewhat  similar,  he  formerly  did 
his  highly  favored  Israel.  “My  people, ”  says  he,  “would  not 
hearken  to  my  voice.  So  I  gave  them  up  to  their  own  hearts’  lusts, 
and  they  walked  in  their  own  counsels.  ”  “  Israel  hath  made  many 

altars  to  sin :  therefore  altars  shall  be  unto  him  to  sin.  ’  ’ 

Thus,  then,  are  we  to  be  consistently  understood,  as  fully  and 
fairly  intending,  on  our  part,  what  we  have  declared  and  proposed 
to  our  brethren,  as,  to  our  apprehension,  incumbent  upon  them  and 
us,  for  putting  an  end  forever  to  our  sad  and  lamentable  schisms. 
Should  any  object  and  say  that,  after  all,  the  fullest  compliance 
with  everything  proposed  and  intended  would  not  restore  the 
Church  to  the  desired  unity,  as  there  might  remain  differences  of 
opinion  and  practice;  let  such  but  duly  consider  what  properly 
belongs  to  the  unity  of  the  Church,  and  we  are  persuaded  this 
objection  will  vanish.  Does  not  the  visible  Scriptural  unity  of  her 
public  profession  and  practice,  and,  under  this,  in  the  manifest 
charity  of  her  members,  one  toward  another,  and  not  in  the  unity 
of  private  opinion  and  practice  of  every  individual?  Was  not  this 
evidently  the  case  in  the  apostles  ’  days,  as  has  been  already  ob¬ 
served?  If  so,  the  objection  falls  to  the  ground.  And  here  let  it 
be  noted  (if  the  hint  be  at  all  necessary),  that  we  are  speaking  of 
the  unity  of  the  church  considered  as  a  great,  visible,  professing 


120 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


body,  consisting  of  many  co-ordinate  associations;  each  of  these, 
in  its  aggregate  or  associate  capacity,  walking  by  the  same  rule, 
professing  and  practicing  the  same  things.  That  this  visible  Scrip¬ 
tural  unity  be  preserved  without  corruption,  or  breach  of  charity, 
throughout  the  whole,  and  in  every  particular  worshiping  society 
or  Church,  is  the  grand  desideratum — the  thing  strictly  enjoined 
and  greatly  to  be  desired.  An  agreement  in  the  expressly  revealed 
will  of  God  is  the  adequate  and  firm  foundation  of  this  unity; 
ardent  prayer,  accompanied  with  prudent,  peaceable,  and  persever¬ 
ing  exertion,  in  the  use  of  all  Scriptural  means  for  accomplishing 
it,  are  the  things  humbly  suggested  and  earnestly  recommended  to 
our  brethren.  If  we  have  mistaken  the  way,  their  charity  will  put 
us  right ;  but  if  other  wise,  their  fidelity  to  Christ  and  his  cause 
will  excite  them  to  come  forth  speedily,  to  assist  with  us  in  the 
blessed  work. 

The  Charge  of  Latitudinarianism.  After  all,  should  any  im¬ 
peach  us  with  the  vague  charge  of  Latitudinarianism  (let  none  be 
startled  at  this  gigantic  term),  it  will  prove  as  feeble  an  opponent 
to  the  glorious  cause  in  which  we,  however,  weak  and  unworthy, 
are  professedly  engaged,  as  the  Zamzummins  did  of  old,  to  prevent 
the  children  of  Lot  from  taking  possession  of  their  inheritance. 
If  we  take  no  greater  latitude  than  the  Divine  law  allows,  either 
in  judging  of  persons  or  doctrines — either  in  profession  or  prac¬ 
tice  (and  this  is  the  very  thing  we  humbly  propose  and  sincerely 
intend),  may  we  not  reasonably  hope  that  such  a  latitude  will 
appear,  to  every  upright  Christian,  perfectly  innocent  and  unex¬ 
ceptional?  If  this  be  Latitudinarianism,  it  must  be  a  good  thing, 
and,  therefore,  the  more  we  have  of  it  the  better;  and  may  be  it 
is,  for  we  are  told,  “the  commandment  is  exceeding  broad”;  and 
we  intend  to  go  just  as  far  as  it  will  suffer  us,  but  not  one  hair¬ 
breadth  further ;  so,  at  least,  says  our  profession.  And  surely  it  will 
be  time  enough  to  condemn  our  practice,  when  it  appears  mani¬ 
festly  inconsistent  with  the  profession  we  have  thus  precisely  and 
explicitly  made.  We  here  refer  to  the  whole  of  the  foregoing 
premises.  But  were  this  word  as  bad  as  it  is  long,  were  it  stuffed 
with  evil  from  beginning  to  end,  may  be  it  better  belongs  to  those 
that  brandish  it  so  unmercifully  at  their  neighbors,  especially  if 
they  take  a  greater  latitude  than  their  neighbors  do,  or  than  the 
Divine  law  allows. 

Let  the  case,  then,  be  fairly  submitted  to  all  that  know  their 
Bible,  to  all  that  take  upon  them  to  see  with  their  own  eyes,  to 
judge  for  themselves.  And  here  let  it  be  observed  once  for  all, 
that  it  is  only  to  such  we  direct  our  attention  in  the  foregoing 
pages.  As  for  those  that  either  cannot  or  will  not  see  and  judge 
for  themselves,  they  must  be  content  to  follow  their  leaders  till 
they  come  to  their  eyesight,  or  determine  to  make  use  of  the  fac¬ 
ulties  and  means  of  information  which  God  has  given  them;  with 
such,  in  the  meantime,  it  would  be  useless  to  reason,  seeing  that 
they  either  confessedly  cannot  see,  or  have  completely  resigned 


The  Appendix 


121 


themselves  to  the  conduct  of  their  leaders,  and  are  therefore  de¬ 
termined  to  hearken  to  none  but  them.  If  there  be  none  such,  how¬ 
ever,  we  are  happily  deceived;  but,  if  so,  we  are  not  the  only  per¬ 
sons  that  are  thus  deceived;  for  this  is  the  common  fault  objected 
by  almost  all  the  parties  to  each  other,  namely,  that  they  either 
cannot  or  will  not  see;  and  it  would  be  hard  to  think  they  were  all 
mistaken;  the  fewer  there  be,  however,  of  this  description,  the 
better. 

To  all  those,  then,  that  are  disposed  to  see  and  think  for  them¬ 
selves,  to  form  their  judgment  by  the  Divine  word  itself,  and  not 
by  any  human  explication  of  it,  humbly  relying  upon  and  looking 
for  the  promised  assistance  of  Divine  teaching,  and  not  barely 
trusting  to  their  own  understanding — to  all  such  do  we  gladly  com¬ 
mit  our  cause,  being  persuaded  that,  at  least,  they  will  give  it  a 
very  serious  and  impartial  consideration,  as  being  truly  desirous 
to  know  the  truth.  To  you,  then,  we  appeal,  in  the  present  in¬ 
stance,  as  we  have  also  done  from  the  beginning.  Say,  we  beseech 
you,  to  whom  does  the  charge  of  Latitudinarianism,  when  taken  in 
a  bad  sense  (for  we  have  supposed  it  may  be  taken  in  a  good 
sense),  most  truly  and  properly  belong,  whether  to  those  that  will 
neither  add  nor  diminish  anything  as  to  matter  of  faith  and  duty, 
either  to  or  from  what  is  expressly  revealed  and  enjoined  in  the 
holy  Scriptures,  or  to  those  who  pretend  to  go  further  than  this, 
or  to  set  aside  some  of  its  express  declarations  and  injunctions,  to 
make  way  for  their  own  opinions,  inferences,  and  conclusions? 
Whether  to  those  who  profess  their  willingness  to  hold  communion 
with  their  acknowledged  Christian  brethren,  when  they  neither  man¬ 
ifestly  oppose  nor  contradict  anything  expressly  revealed  and  en¬ 
joined  in  the  sacred  standard,  or  to  those  who  reject  such,  when 
professing  to  believe  and  practice  whatever  is  expressly  revealed 
and  enjoined  therein,  without,  at  the  same  time,  being  alleged 
much  less  found  guilty,  of  anything  to  the  contrary,  but  instead 
of  this  asserting  and  declaring  their  hearty  assent  and  consent  to 
everything  for  which  there  can  be  expressly  produced  a  “Thus  saith 
the  Lord,  ”  either  in  express  terms  or  by  approved  precedent?  To 
which  of  these,  think  you,  does  the  odious  charge  of  Latitudiana- 
rianism  belong?  Which  of  them  takes  the  greatest  latitude?  Wheth¬ 
er  those  that  expressly  judge  and  condemn  where  they  have  no 
express  warrant  for  so  doing,  or  those  that  absolutely  refuse  so  to 
do?  And  we  can  assure  our  brethren,  that  such  things  are  and 
have  been  done,  to  our  own  certain  knowledge,  and  even  where  we 
least  expect  it;  and  that  it  is  to  this  discovery,  as  much  as  to 
many  other  things,  that  we  stand  indebted  for  that  thorough 
conviction  of  the  evil  state  of  things  in  the  Churches,  which  has 
given  rise  to  our  association. 

Three  Great  Evils.  As  for  our  part,  we  dare  no  longer  give  our 
assent  to  such  proceedings;  we  dare  no  longer  concur  in  expressly 
asserting  or  declaring  anything  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  that  he 
has  not  expressly  declared  in  his  holy  word.  And  until  such  time 


122 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


as  Christians  come  to  see  the  evil  of  doing  otherwise,  we  see  no 
rational  ground  to  hope  that  there  can  be  either  unity,  peace,  pur¬ 
ity,  or  prosperity,  in  the  Church  of  God.  Convinced  of  the  truth 
of  this,  we  would  humbly  desire  to  be  instrumental  in  pointing 
out  to  our  fellow-Christians  the  evils  of  such  conduct.  And  if  we 
might  venture  to  give  our  opinion  of  such  proceedings,  we  would 
not  hesitate  to  say,  that  they  appear  to  include  three  great  evils — 
evils  truly  great  in  themselves,  and  at  the  same  time  productive  of 
most  evil  consequences. 

First,  to  determine  expressly,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  when  the 
Lord  has  not  expressly  determined,  appears  to  us  a  very  great  evil. 
(See  Deut.  xviii:  20.  “The  prophet  that  shall  presume  to  speak 
a  word  in  my  name,  which  I  have  not  commanded  him  to  speak, 
even  that  prophet  shall  die.  ”  The  apostle  Paul,  no  doubt,  well 
aware  of  this,  cautiously  distinguishes  between  his  own  judgment 
and  the  express  injunctions  of  the  Lord.  (See  I  Cor.  vii:  25  and 
40.)  Though,  at  the  same  time,  it  appears  that  he  was  as  well  con¬ 
vinced  of  the  truth  and  propriety  of  his  declarations,  and  of  the 
concurrence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  with  his  judgment,  as  any  of  our 
modern  determiners  may  be;  for  “I  think, ”  said  he,  “that  I  have 
the  Spirit  of  God,?;  and  we  doubt  much,  if  the  best  of  them  could 
honestly  say  more  than  this;  yet  we  see  that,  with  all  this,  he  would 
not  bind  the  Church  with  his  conclusions ;  and,  for  this  very  reason, 
as  he  expressly  tells  us,  because,  as  to  the  matter  on  hand,  he  had 
no  commandment  of  the  Lord.  He  spoke  by  permission,  and  not 
by  commandment,  as  one  that  had  obtained  mercy  to  be  faithful, 
and  therefore  would  not  forge  his  Master ’s  name  by  affixing  it 
to  his  own  conclusions,  saying,  1 1  The  Lord  saith,  when  the  Lord 
had  not  spoken.  ’  ’ 

A  second  evil  is,  not  only  judging  our  brother  to  be  absolutely 
wrong,  because  he  differs  from  our  opinions,  but  more  espeically, 
our  judging  him  to  be  a  transgressor  of  the  law  in  so  doing,  and, 
of  course,  treating  him  as  such  by  censuring  or  otherwise  exposing 
him  to  contempt,  or,  at  least,  preferring  ourselves  before  him  in 
our  own  judgment,  saying,  as  it  were,  Stand  by,  I  am  holier  than 
thou. 

A  third  and  still  more  dreadful  evil  is,  when  we  not  only,  in 
this  kind  of  way,  judge  and  set  at  naught  our  brother,  but,  more¬ 
over,  proceed  as  a  Church,  acting  and  judging  in  the  name  of 
Christ,  not  only  to  determine  that  our  brother  is  wrong  because  he 
differs  from  our  determinations,  but  also,  in  connection  with  this, 
proceed  so  far  as  to  determine  the  merits  of  the  cause  by  rejecting 
him,  or  casting  him  out  of  the  Church,  as  unworthy  of  a  place  in 
her  communion,  and  thus,  as  far  as  in  our  power,  cutting  him  off 
from  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  In  proceeding  thus,  we  not  only 
declare,  that,  in  our  judgment,  our  brother  is  in  an  error,  which 
we  may  sometimes  do  in  a  perfect  consistence  with  charity,  but  we 
also  take  upon  us  to  judge,  as  acting  in  the  name  and  by  the  au- 


The  Appendix 


123 


thority  of  Christ,  that  his  error  cuts  him  off  from  salvation;  that 
continuing  such,  he  has  no  inheritance  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
and  of  God.  If  not,  what  means  our  refusing  him — our  casting  him 
out  of  the  Church,  which  is  the  kingdom  of  God  in  this  world? 

Consequences  of  Excommunication.  For  certainly,  if  a  person 
have  no  right,  according  to  the  Divine  word,  to  a  place  in  the 
Church  of  God  upon  earth  (which  we  say  he  has  not,  by  thus  re¬ 
jecting  him),  he  can  have  nine  to  a  place  in  the  Church  in  heaven — 
unless  we  should  suppose  that  those  whom  Christ  by  his  word  re¬ 
jects  here,  he  will  nevertheless  receive  hereafter.  And  surely  it  is 
by  the  word  that  every  Church  pretends  to  judge;  and  it  is  by  this 
rule,  in  the  case  before  us,  that  the  person  in  the  judgment  of  the 
Church  stands  rejected. 

Now  is  not  this,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  determining  the 
merits  of  the  cause?  Do  we  not  conclude  that  the  person’s  error 
cuts  him  off  from  all  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation,  by  thus 
cutting  him  off  from  a  place  in  the  Church,  out  of  which  there  is 
no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation?  Does  he  not  henceforth  be¬ 
come  to  us  as  a  heathen  man  and  a  publican?  Is  he  not  reckoned 
among  the  number  of  those  that  are  without,  whom  God  judgeth? 
If  not,  what  means  such  a  solemn  determination?  Is  it  anything 
or  is  it  nothing,  for  a  person  to  stand  rejected  by  the  Church  of 
God? 

If  such  rejection  confessedly  leave  the  man  still  in  the  same  safe 
and  hopeful  state  as  to  his  spiritual  interests,  then,  indeed,  it  be¬ 
comes  a  matter  of  mere  indifference;  for  as  to  his  civil  and  natural 
privileges,  it  interferes  not  with  them.  But  the  Scripture  gives  us 
a  verv  different  view  of  the  matter;  for  there  we  see  that  those 
that  stand  justly  rejected  by  the  Church  on  earth,  have  no  room 
to  hope  for  a  place  in  the  Church  of  heaven.  “What  ye  bind  on 
earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven  ’  ’  is  the  awful  sanction  of  the 
Church’s  judgment,  in  justly  rejecting  any  person.  Take  away  this, 
and  it  has  no  sanction  at  all.  But  tne  Church  rejecting,  always 
pretends  to  have  acted  justly  in  so  doing,  and,  if  so,  whereabouts 
does  it  confessedly  leave  the  person  rejected,  if  not  in  a  state  of 
damnation?  that  is  to  say,  if  it  acknowledge  itself  to  be  a  Church 
of  Christ,  and  to  have  acted  justly? 

If,  after  all,  any  particular  Church  acting  thus  should  refuse  the 
foregoing  conclusion,  by  saying:  We  meant  no  such  thing  concern¬ 
ing  the  person  rejected;  we  only  judged  him  unworthy  of  a  place 
among  us,  and  therefore  put  him  away,  but  there  are  other 
Churches  that  may  receive  him;  we  would  be  almost  tempted  to 
ask  such  a  Church,  if  those  other  Churches  be  Churches  of  Christ, 
and  if  so,  pray  what  does  it  account  itself?  Is  it  anything  more  or 
better  than  a  Church  of  Christ?  And  whether,  if  those  other 
Churches  do  their  duty  as  faithful  Churches,  any  of  them  would 
receive  the  person  it  had  rejected?  If  it  be  answered  that,  in  act¬ 
ing  faithfully,  none  of  those  other  Churches  either  could  or  would 
receive  him,  then,  confessedly,  in  the  judgment  of  this  particular 


124 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


Church,  the  person  ought  to  be  universally  rejected;  but  if  other¬ 
wise,  it  condemns  itself  of  having  acted  unfaithfully,  nay  cruelly, 
toward  a  Christian  brother,  a  child  of  God,  in  thus  rejecting  him 
from  the  heritage  of  the  Lord,  in  thus  cutting  him  off  from  his 
Father’s  house,  as  the  unnatural  brethren  did  the  beloved  Joseph. 

But  even  suppose  some  one  or  other  of  those  unfaithful  Churches 
should  receive  the  outcast,,  would  their  unfaithfulness  in  so  doing 
nullify,  in  the  judgment  of  this  more  faithful  Church,  its  just  and 
faithful  decision  in  rejecting  him?  If  not,  then  confessedly,  in  its 
judgment,  the  person  still  remains  under  the  influence  of  its  right¬ 
eous  sentence,  debarred  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven;  that  is  to 
say,  if  it  believe  the  Scriptures,  that  what  it  has  righteously  done 
upon  earth  is  ratified  in  heaven.  We  see  no  way  that  a  Church  act¬ 
ing  thus  can  possibly  get  rid  of  this  awful  conclusion,  except  it 
acknowledges  that  the  person  it  has  rejected  from  its  communion 
still  has  a  right  to  the  communion  of  the  Church ;  but  if  it  acknowl¬ 
edge  this,  whereabout  does  it  leave  itself,  in  thus  shutting  out  a 
fellow-Christian,  an  acknowledged  brother,  a  child  of  God?  Do  we 
find  any  parallel  for  such  conduct  in  the  inspired  records,  except 
in  the  case  of  Diotrephes,  of  whom  the  apostle  says,  “Who  loveth 
to  have  the  pre-eminence  among  them,  receiveth  us  not,  prating 
against  us  with  malicious  words:  and  not  content  therewith,  neither 
doth  he  himself  receive  the  brethren,  and  forbiddeth  them  that 
would,  and  casteth  them  out  of  the  Church.  ’  ’ 

But  further,  suppose  another  Church  should  receive  this  cast¬ 
away,  this  person  which  this  faithful  Church  supposed  itself  to  have 
righteously  rejected,  would  not  the  Church  so  doing  incur  the  dis¬ 
pleasure,  nay  even  the  censure  of  the  Church  that  had  rejected  him? 
and,  we  should  think,  justly  too  if  he  deserved  to  be  rejected.  And 
would  not  this  naturally  produce  a  schism  between  the  Churches? 
Or,  if  it  be  supposed  that  a  schism  did  already  exist,  would  not  this 
manifestly  tend  to  perpetuate  and  increase  it?  If  one  Church, 
receiving  those  whom  another  puts  away,  will  not  be  productive  of 
schism,  we  must  confess  we  cannot  tell  what  would. 

That  Church,  therefore,  must  surely  act  very  schismatically,  very 
unlike  a  Church  of  Christ,  which  necessarily  presupposes  or  pro¬ 
duces  schism  in  order  to  shield  an  oppressed  fellow-Christian  from 
the  dreadful  consequences  of  its  unrighteous  proceedings.  And  is 
not  this  confessedly  the  case  with  every  Church  which  rejects  a 
person  from  its  communion  while  it  acknowledges  him  to  be  a  fel¬ 
low-Christian;  and,  in  order  to  excuse  this  piece  of  cruelty,  says  he 
may  find  refuge  some  place  else,  some  other  Church  may  receive 
him?  For,  as  we  have  already  observed,  if  no  schism  did  already 
exist,  one  Church  receiving  those  whom  another  has  rejected  must 
certainly  make  one.  The  same  evils  also  will  as  justly  attach  to 
the  conduct  of  an  individual  who  refuses  or  breaks  communion  with 
a  Church  because  it  will  not  receive  or  make  room  for  his  private 
opinions  or  self-devised  practices  in  its  public  profession  and  man- 


The  Appendix 


125 


agements;  for  does  he  not,  in  this  case,  actually  take  upon  him  to 
judge  the  Church  which  he  thus  rejects  as  unworthy  of  the  com¬ 
munion  of  Christians?  And  is  not  this,  to  all  intents  and  purposes, 
declaring  it,  in  his  judgment,  excommunicate,  or  at  least  worthy  of 
excommunication  ? 

The  True  Basis  of  Union.  Thus  have  we  briefly  endeavored  to 
show  our  brethren  what  evidently  appears  to  us  to  be  the  heinous 
nature  and  dreadful  consequences  of  that  truly  latitudinarian  prin¬ 
ciple  and  practice  which  is  the  bitter  root  of  almost  all  our  divisions, 
namely,  the  imposing  of  our  private  opinions  upon  each  other  as 
articles  of  faith  or  duty,  introducing  them  into  the  public  profes¬ 
sion  and  practice  of  the  Church,  and  acting  upon  them  as  if  they 
were  the  express  law  of  Christ,  by  judging  and  rejecting  our 
brethren  that  differ  from  us  in  those  things,  or  at  least  by  so  retain¬ 
ing  them  in  our  public  profession  and  practice  that  our  brethren 
cannot  join  with  us,  or  we  with  them,  without  becoming  actually 
partakers  in  those  things  which  they  or  we  cannot  in  conscience 
approve,  and  which  the  word  of  God  nowhere  expressly  enjoins  upon 
us. 

To  cease  from  all  such  things,  by  simply  returning  to  the  orig¬ 
inal  standard  of  Christianity,  the  profession  and  practice  of  the 
primitive  Church,  as  expressly  exhibited  upon  the  sacred  page  of 
New  Testament  Scripture,  is  the  only  possible  way  that  wre  can 
perceive  to  get  rid  of  those  evils.  And  we  humbly  think  that  a 
uniform  agreement  in  that  for  the  preservation  of  charity  would  be 
infinitely  preferable  to  our  contentions  and  divisions;  nay,  that 
such  a  uniformity  is  the  very  thing  that  the  Lord  requires  if  the 
New  Testament  Scripture,  is  the  only  possible  way  that  we  can 
worship,  discipline,  and  government  of  the  Christian  Church.  Let 
us  do  as  we  are  there  expressly  told  they  did,  say  as  they  said;  that 
is,  profess  and  practice  as  therein  expressly  enjoined  by  precept 
and  precedent,  in  every  possible  instance,  after  their  approved  ex¬ 
ample;  and  in  doing  so  we  shall  realize  and  exhibit  all  that  unity 
and  uniformity  that  the  primitive  Church  possessed,  or  that  the  law 
of  Christ  requires.  But  if,  after  all,  our  brethren  can  point  out  a 
better  way  to  regain  and  preserve  that  Christian  unity  and  charity 
expressly  enjoined  upon  the  Church  of  God,  we  shall  thank  them 
for  the  discovery,  and  cheerfully  embrace  it. 

Different  Interpretations  of  Scriptures.  Should  it  still  be  urged 
that  this  would  open  a  wide  door  to  latitudinarianism,  seeing  all 
that  profess  Christianity  profess  to  receive  the  holy  Scriptures,  and 
yet  differ  so  widely  in  their  religious  sentiments,  we  say,  let  them 
profess  what  they  will,  their  difference  in  religious  profession  and 
practice  originates  in  their  departure  from  what  is  expressly  re¬ 
vealed  and  enjoined,  and  not  in  their  strict  and  faithful  conformity 
to  it,  which  is  the  thing  we  humbly  advise  for  putting  an  end  to 
those  differences.  But  you  may  say,  Do  they  not  already  all  agree 
in  the  letter,  though  differing  so  far  in  sentiment?  However,  this 
may  be,  have  they  all  agreed  to  make  the  letter  their  rule,  or,  rather, 


126 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


to  make  it  the  subject-matter  of  their  profession  and  practice? 
Surely  not,  or  else  they  would  all  profess  and  practice  the  same 
thing. 

Is  it  not  as  evident  as  the  shining  light  that  the  Scriptures 
exhibit  but  one  and  the  self-same  subject-matter  of  profession  and 
practice,  at  all  times  and  in  all  places,  and  that,  therefore,  to  say 
as  it  declares,  and  to  do  as  it  prescribes  in  all  its  holy  precepts,  its 
approved  and  imitable  examples,  would  unite  the  Christian  Church 
in  a  holy  sameness  of  profession  and  practice  throughout  the  whole 
world?  By  the  Christian  Church  throughout  the  world,  we  mean  the 
aggregate  of  such  professors  as  we  have  described  in  Propositions 
1  and  8,  pages  48  and  50,  even  all  that  mutually  acknowledge  each 
other  as  Christians,  upon  the  manifest  evidence  of  their  faith,  holi¬ 
ness,  and  charity.  It  is  such  only  we  intend  when  we  urge  the 
necessity  of  Christian  unity.  Had  only  such  been  all  along  recog¬ 
nized  as  the  genuine  subjects  of  our  holy  religion,  there  would  not, 
in  all  probability,  have  been  so  much  apparent  need  for  human 
formulas  to  preserve  an  external  formality  of  professional  unity 
and  soundness  in  the  faith,  but  artificial  and  superficial  characters 
need  artificial  means  to  train  and  unite  them. 

A  manifest  attachment  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  faith,  holi¬ 
ness,  and  charity,  was  the  original  criterion  of  Christian  character, 
the  distinguishing  badge  of  our  holy  profession,  the  foundation  and 
cement  of  Christian  unity.  But  now,  alas!  and  long  since,  an  ex¬ 
ternal  name,  a  mere  educational  formality  of  sameness  in  the  pro¬ 
fession  of  a  certain  standard  or  formula  of  human  fabric,  with  a 
very  moderate  degree  of  what  is  called  morality,  forms  the  bond 
and  foundation,  the  root  aud  reason  of  ecclesiastical  unity. 

Take  away  from  such  the  technicalness  of  their  profession,  the 
shibboleth  of  party,  and  what  have  they  more?  What  have  they 
left  to  distinguish  and  hold  them  together?  As  for  the  Bible,  they 
are  but  little  beholden  to  it,  they  have  learned  little  from  it,  they 
know  little  about  it,  and  therefore  depend  as  little  upon  it.  Nay, 
they  will  even  tell  you  it  would  be  of  no  use  to  them  without  their 
formula;  they  could  not  know  a  Papist  from  a  Protestant  by  it; 
that  merely  by  it  they  could  neither  keep  themselves  nor  the  Church 
right  for  a  single  week.  You  might  preach  to  them  what  you  please, 
they  could  not  distinguish  truth  from  error.  Poor  people,  it  is  no 
wonder  they  are  so  fond  of  their  formula!  Therefore,  they  that 
exercise  authority  upon  them  and  tell  them  what  they  are  to  be¬ 
lieve  and  what  they  are  to  do,  are  called  benefactors. 

These  are  the  reverend  and  right  reverend  authors,  upon  whom 
they  can  and  do  place  a  more  entire  and  implicit  confidence  than 
upon  the  holy  apostles  and  prophets;  those  plain,  honest,  unassuming 
men,  who  would  never  venture  to  say  or  do  anything  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  without  an  express  revelation  from  Heaven,  and  there¬ 
fore  were  never  distinguished  by  the  venerable  titles  of  Rabbi  or 
Reverend,  but  just  simple  Paul,  John,  Thomas,  etc.  These  were  but 
servants.  They  did  not  assume  to  legislate,  and,  therefore,  neither 


The  Appendix 


127 


assumed  nor  received  any  honorary  titles  among  men,  but  merely 
such  as  were  descriptive  of  their  office. 

And  how,  we  beseech  you,  shall  this  gross  and  prevalent  corrup¬ 
tion  be  purged  out  of  the  visible  professing  Church  but  by  a  radical 
reform,  but  by  returning  to  the  original  simplicity,  the  primitive 
purity  of  the  Christian  institution,  and,  of  course,  taking  up  things 
just  as  we  find  them  upon  the  sacred  page.  And  who  is  there  that 
knows  anything  of  the  present  state  of  the  Church  who  does  not 
perceive  that  it  is  greatly  overrun  with  the  aforesaid  evils?  Or 
who  that  reads  his  Bible,  and  receives  the  impressions  it  must 
necessarily  produce  upon  the  receptive  mind  by  the  statements  it 
exhibits,  does  not  perceive  that  such  a  state  of  things  is  as  distinct 
from  the  genuine  Christianity  as  oil  is  from  water? 

Departure  from  Bible,  Cause  of  Schism.  On  the  other  hand,  is 
it  not  equally  as  evident  that  not  one  of  all  the  erroneous  tenets 
and  corrupt  practices  which  have  so  defamed  and  corrupted  the 
public  profession  and  practice  of  Christianity,  could  ever  have  ap¬ 
peared  in  the  world  had  men  kept  close  by  the  express  letter  of  the 
Divine  law,  had  they  thus  held  fast  that  form  of  sound  words  con¬ 
tained  in  the  holy  Scriptures,  and  considered  in  their  duty  so  to  do, 
unless  they  blame  those  errors  and  corruptions  upon  the  very  form 
and  expression  of  the  Scriptures,  and  say  that,  taken  in  their  letter 
and  connection,  they  immediately,  and  at  first  sight,  as  it  were  ex¬ 
hibit  the  picture  they  have  drawn.  Should  any  be  so  bold  as  to 
assert  this,  let  them  produce  their  performance,  the  original  is  at 
hand;  and  let  them  show  us  line  for  line,  expression  for  expression, 
precept  and  precedent  for  practice,  without  the  torture  of  criticism, 
inference,  or  conjecture,  and  then  we  shall  honestly  blame  the  whole 
upon  the  Bible,  and  thank  those  that  will  give  us  an  expurged  edi¬ 
tion  of  it,  call  it  constitution,  or  formula,  or  what  you  please,  that 
will  not  be  liable  to  lead  the  simple,  unlettered  world  into  those 
gross  mistakes,  those  contentions,  schisms,  excommunications,  and 
persecutions  which  have  proved  so  detrimental  and  scandalous  to 
our  holy  religion. 

Not  Absolute  Uniformity.  Should  it  be  further  objected,  that 
even  this  strict  literal  uniformity  would  neither  infer  nor  secure 
unity  of  sentiment;  it  is  granted  that,  in  a  certain  degree,  it  would 
not;  nor,  indeed,  is  here  anything  either  in  Scripture  of  the  nature 
of  things  that  should  induce  us  to  expect  an  entire  unity  of  senti¬ 
ment  in  the  present  imperfect  state.  The  Church  may,  and  wrn  be¬ 
lieve  will,  come  to  such  a  Scriptural  unity  of  faith  and  practice, 
that  there  will  be  no  schism  in  the  body,  no  self-preferring  sect  of 
professed  and  acknowledged  Christians  rejecting  and  excluding  their 
brethren.  This  cannot  be,  however,  till  the  offensive  and  excluding 
causes  be  removed;  and  every  one  knows  what  these  are.  But  that 
all  the  members  should  have  the  same  identical  views  of  all  Divinely 
revealed  truths,  or  that  there  should  be  no  difference  of  opinion 
among  them,  appears  to  us  morally  impossible,  all  things  consid¬ 
ered.  Nor  can  we  conceive  what  desirable  purpose  such  a  unity  of 


128 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


sentiment  would  serve,  except  to  Tender  useless  some  of  those  gra¬ 
cious  self-denying  and  compassionate  precepts  of  mutual  sympathy 
and  forbearance  which  the  word  of  God  enjoins  upon  his  people. 

Such,  then  is  the  imperfection  of  our  present  state.  Would  to 
God  it  might  prove,  as  it  ought,  a  just  and  humbling  counterbal¬ 
ance  to  our  pride!  Then,  indeed,  we  would  judge  one  another  no 
more  about  such  matters.  We  would  rather  be  conscientiously  cau¬ 
tious  to  give  no  offense;  to  put  no  stumbling-block  or  occasion  to 
fall  in  our  brother ’s  way.  We  would  then  no  longer  exalt  our  own 
opinions  and  inferences  to  an  equality  with  express  revelation,  by 
condemning  and  rejecting  our  brother  for  differing  with  us  in  those 
things. 

Plan  Better  Than  Past  Programs.  But  although  it  be  granted 
that  the  uniformity  we  plead  for  would  not  secure  unity  of  senti¬ 
ment,  yet  we  should  suppose  that  it  would  be  as  efficacious  for 
that  purpose  as  any  human  expedient  or  substitute  whatsoever. 
And  here  we  would  ask:  Have  all  or  any  of  those  human  compila¬ 
tions  been  able  to  prevent  divisions,  to  heal  breaches,  or  to  produce 
and  maintain  unity  of  sentiment  even  among  those  who  have  most 
firmly  and  solemnly  embraced  them?  We  appeal  for  this  to  the 
history  of  all  the  Churches,  and  to  the  present  divided  state  of  the 
Church  at  large.  What  good,  then,  have  those  devisive  expedients 
accomplished,  either  to  the  parties  that  have  adopted  them,  or  to 
the  Church  universal,  which  might  not  have  been  as  well  secured 
by  holding  fast  in  professions  and  practice  that  form  of  sound 
words  contained  in  the  Divine  standard,  without,  at  the  same  time, 
being  liable  to  any  of  those  dangerous  and  destructive  consequences 
which  have  necessarily  ensued  upon  the  present  mode? 

Or,  will  any  venture  to  say  that  the  Scriptures,  thus  kept  in 
their  proper  place,  would  not  have  been  amply  sufficient,  under  the 
promised  influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  to  have  produced  all  that 
unity  of  sentiment  which  is  necessary  to  a  life  of  faith  and  holiness; 
and  also  to  have  preserved  the  faith  and  worship  of  the  Church 
as  pure  from  mixture  and  error  as  the  Lord  intended,  or  as  the 
jjresent  emperfect  state  of  his  people  can  possibly  admit?  We 
should  tremble  to  think  that  any  Christian  should  say  that  they 
would  not.  And  if  to  use  them  thus  would  be  sufficient  for  those 
purposes,  why  resort  to  other  expedients;  to  expedients  which,  from 
the  beginning  to  this  day,  have  proved  utterly  insufficient;  nay,  to 
expedients  which  have  always  produced  the  very  contrary  effects,  as 
experience  testifies. 

Let  none  here  imagine  that  we  set  any  certain  limits  to  the 
Divine  intention,  or  to  the  greatness  of  his  power  when  we  thus 
speak,  as  if  a  certain  degree  of  purity  from  mixture  and  error  were 
not  desinged  for  the  Church  in  this  world,  or  attainable  by  his  peo¬ 
ple  upon  earth  except  in  so  far  as  respects  the  attainment  of  an  an¬ 
gelic  or  unerring  perfection,  much  less  that  we  mean  to  suggest 
that  a  very  moderate  degree  of  unity  and  purity  should  content 
us.  We  only  take  it  for  granted  that  such  a  state  of  perfection  is 


The  Appendix 


129 


neither  intended  nor  attainable  in  this  world,  as  will  free  the 
Church  from  all  those  weaknesses,  mistakes  and  mismanagements 
from  which  she  will  be  completely  exempted  in  heaven,  however 
sound  and  upright  she  may  now  be  in  her  profession,  intention,  and 
practice. 

Neither  let  any  imagine  that  we  here  or  elsewhere  suppose  or 
intend  to  assert  that  human  standards  are  intentionally  set  up  in 
competition  with  the  Bible,  much  less  in  opposition  to  it.  We 
fairly  understand  and  consider  them  as  human  expedients,  or  as 
certain  doctrinal  declarations  of  the  sense  in  which  the  compilers 
understood  the  Scriptures,  designed  and  embraced  for  the  purpose 
of  promoting  and  securing  that  desirable  unity  and  purity  which  the 
Bible  alone,  without  those  helps,  would  be  insufficient  to  maintain 
and  secure.  If  this  be  not  the  sense  of  those  that  receive  and  hold 
them,  for  the  aforesaid  purpose,  we  should  be  glad  to  know  what 
it  is.  It  is,  however,  in  this  very  sense  that  we  take  them  up  when 
we  complain  of  them,  as  not  only  unsuccessful,  but  also  as  unhappy 
expedients,  producing  the  very  contrary  effects. 

And  even  suppose  it  were  doubtful  whether  or  not  those  helps 
have  produced  divisions,  one  thing,  at  least,  is  certain,  they  have 
not  been  able  to  prevent  them;  and  now,  that  divisions  do  exist,  it 
is  as  certain  that  they  have  no  fitness  nor  tendency  to  heal  them, 
but  the  very  contrary,  as  fact  and  experience  clearly  demonstrate. 
What  shall  we  do,  then,  to  heal  our  divisions?  We  must  certainly 
take  some  other  way  than  the  present  practice,  if  they  ever  be 
healed;  for  it  expressly  says,  they  must  and  shall  be  perpetuated 
forever.  Let  all  the  enemies  of  Christianity  say  Amen;  but  let  all 
Christians  continually  say:  Forbid  it,  0  Lord.  May  the  good  Lord 
subdue  the  corruptions  and  heal  the  divisions  of  his  people.  Amen 
and  amen. 

Arguments  Against  Creeds.  After  all  that  has  been  said,  some 
of  our  timid  brethren  may,  possibly,  still  object,  and  say:  we  fear 
that  without  the  intervention  of  some  definite  creed  or  formula,  you 
will  justly  incur  the  censure  of  latitudinarianism :  for  how  other¬ 
wise  detect  and  exclude  Allans,  Socinians,  etc?  To  such  we  would 
reply,  that  if  to  profess,  inculcate,  and  practice  neither  more  nor 
less,  neither  anything  else  nor  otherwise  than  the  Divine  word  ex¬ 
pressly  declares  respecting  the  entire  subject  of  faith  and  duty,  and 
simply  to  rest  in  that,  as  the  expression  of  our  faith  and  rule  of  our 
practice,  will  not  amount  to  the  profession  and  practical  exhibition 
of  Arianism,  Socinianism,  etc.,  but  merely  to  one  and  the  self-same 
thing,  whatever  it  may  be  called,  then  is  the  ground  that  we  have 
taken,  the  principle  that  we  advocate,  in  nowise  chargeable  with 
latitudinarianism. 

Should  it  be  still  further  objected  that  all  these  sects,  and  many 
more,  profess  to  receive  the  Bible,  to  believe  it  to  be  the  word  of 
God,  and,  therefore,  will  readily  profess  to  believe  and  practice 
whatever  is  revealed  and  enjoined  therein,  and  yet  each  will  under- 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


stand  in  liis  own  way,  and  of  course  practice  accordingly;  never¬ 
theless,  according  to  the  plan  proposed,  you  receive  them  all.  We 
would  ask,  then,  do  all  these  profess  and  practice  neither  more  nor 
less  than  what  we  read  in  the  Bible — than  what  is  expressly  re¬ 
vealed  and  enjoined  therein?  If  so,  they  all  profess  and  practice 
the  same  thing,  for  the  Bible  exhibits  but  one  and  the  self-same 
thing  to  all.  Or,  is  it  their  own  inferences  and  opinions  that  they, 
in  reality,  profess  and  practice?  If  so,  then  upon  the  ground  that 
we  have  taken  they  stand  rejected,  as  condemned  of  themselves,  for 
thus  professing  one  thing  when  in  fact  and  reality  they  manifestly 
practice  another. 

But  perhaps  you  will  say,  that  although  a  uniformity  in  profes¬ 
sion,  and  it  may  be  in  practice  too,  might  thus  be  produced,  yet 
still  it  would  amount  to  no  more  than  a  mere  uniformity  in  words, 
and  in  the  external  formalities  of  practice,  while  the  persons  thus 
professing  and  practicing  might  each  entertain  his  own  sentiments, 
how  different  soever  these  might  be.  Our  reply  is,  if  so,  they  could 
hurt  nobody  but  themselves.  Besides,  if  persons  thus  united  pro¬ 
fessed  and  practiced  all  the  same  things,  pray  who  could  tell  that 
they  entertained  different  sentiments,  or  even  in  justice  suppose  it, 
unless  they  gave  some  evident  intimation  of  it?  which,  if  they  did, 
would  justly  expose  them  to  censure  or  to  rejection,  if  they  re¬ 
pented  not;  seeing  the  offense,  in  this  case,  must  amount  to  nothing 
less  than  an  express  violation  of  the  expressly  revealed  will  of  God 
— to  a  manifest  transgression  of  the  express  letter  of  the  law;  for 
we  have  declared,  that  except  in  such  a  ease,  no  man,  in  our  judg¬ 
ment,  has  a  right  to  judge,  that  is,  to  condemn  or  reject  his  pro¬ 
fessing  brother.  Here,  we  presume,  there  is  no  greater  latitude 
assumed  or  allowed  on  either  side  than  the  law  expressly  determines. 

But  we  would  humbly  ask,  if  a  professed  agreement  in  the  terms 
of  any  standard  be  not  liable  to  the  very  same  objection?  If,  for 
instance,  Arians,  Socinians,  Arminians,  Calvinists,  Antinomians,  etc., 
might  not  all  subscribe  the  Westminster  Confession,  the  Athanasian 
Creed,  or  the  doctrinal  articles  of  the  Church  of  England.  If  this 
be  denied,  we  appeal  to  historical  facts;  and,  in  the  meantime,  ven¬ 
ture  to  assert,  that  such  things  are  and  have  been  done. 

Or,  will  any  say,  that  a  person  might  not  with  equal  ease,  hon¬ 
esty,  and  consistency,  be  an  Arian  or  a  Socinian  in  his  heart  while 
subscribing  the  Westminster  Confession  or  the  Athanasian  Creed, 
as  while  making  his  unqualified  profession  to  believe  everything 
that  the  Scriptures  declare  concerning  Christ?  to  put  all  that  con¬ 
fidence  in  him,  and  to  ascribe  all  that  glory,  honor,  thanksgiving, 
and  praise  to  him,  professed  and  ascribed  to  him  in  the  Divine 
word!  If  you  say  not,  it  follows,  of  undeniable  consequence,  that 
the  wisdom  of  men,  in  those  compilations,  has  effected  what  the 
Divine  Wisdom  either  could  not,  would  not,  or  did  not  do,  in  that 
all-perfect  and  glorious  revelation  of  his  will,  contained  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  Happy  emendation!  Blessed  expedient!  Happy, 
indeed,  for  the  Church  that  Athanasius  arose  in  the  fourth  century 


The  Appendix 


131 


to  perfect  what  the  holy  apostles  and  prophets  had  left  in  such 
a  rude  and  unfinished  state.  But  if,  after  all,  the  Divine  Wisdom 
did  not  think  proper  to  do  anything  more,  or  anything  else  than 
is  already  done  in  the  sacred  oracles,  to  settle  and  determine  tlio-e 
important  points,  who  can  say  that  he  determined  such  a  thing 
should  be  done  afterward?  Or  has  he  anywhere  given  us  any  inti¬ 
mation  of  such  an  intention? 

Limitation  of  Unity.  Let  it  here  be  carefully  observed  that  the 
question  before  us  is  about  human  standards  designed  to  be  sub¬ 
scribed,  or  otherwise  solemnly  acknowledged,  for  the  preservation 
of  ecclesiastical  unity  and  purity,  and  therefore,  of  course,  by  no 
means  applies  to  the  many  excellent  performances,  for  the  Scrip¬ 
tural  elucidation  and  defense  of  Divinely  revealed  truths  and  other 
instructive  purposes.  These,  we  hope,  according  to  their  respec¬ 
tive  merit,  we  as  highly  esteem,  and  as  thankfully  receive,  as  our 
brethren.  But  further,  with  respect  to  unity  of  sentiment,  even 
suppose  it  ever  so  desirable,  it  appears  highly  questionable  whether 
such  a  thing  can  at  all  be  secured,  by  any  expedient  whatsoever, 
especially  if  we  consider  that  it  necessarily  presupposes  in  so  far 
a  unity  or  sameness  of  understanding.  Or,  will  any  say,  that  from 
the  youth  of  seventeen  to  the  man  of  fourscore — from  the  illiterate 
peasant,  up  to  the  learned  prelate — all  the  legitimate  members  of 
the  Church  entertain  the  same  sentiments  under  their  respective 
formulas?  If  not,  it  is  still  but  a  mere  verbal  agreement,  a  mere 
show  of  unity.  They  say  an  amen  to  the  same  forms  of  speech, 
or  of  sound  words,  as  they  are  called,  without  having,  at  the  same 
time,  the  same  views  of  the  subject;  or,  it  may  be,  without  any  de¬ 
terminate  views  of  it  at  all.  And,  what  is  still  worse,  this  profession 
is  palmed  upon  the  world,  as  well  as  upon  the  too  credulous  pro¬ 
fessors  themselves,  for  unity  of  sentiment,  for  soundness  in  the 
faith;  when  in  a  thousand  instances,  they  have,  properly  speaking, 
no  faith  at  all;  that  is  to  say,  if  faith  necessarily  presupposes  a 
true  and  satisfactory  conviction  of  the  Scriptural  evidence  and  cer¬ 
tainty  of  the  truth  of  the  propositions  we  profess  to  believe. 

A  cheap  and  easy  orthodoxy  this,  to  which  we  may  attain  by 
committing  to  memory  a  catechism,  or  professing  our  approbation 
of  a  formula,  made  ready  to  our  hand,  which  we  may  or  may  not 
have  once  read  over;  or  even  if  we  have,  yet  may  not  have  been 
able  to  read  it  so  correctly  and  intelligently  as  to  clearly  under¬ 
stand  one  single  paragraph  from  beginning  to  end,  much  less  to  com¬ 
pare  it  with,  to  search  and  try  it  by  the  holy  Scriptures,  to  see 
if  these  things  be  so.  A  cheap  and  easy  orthodoxy  this,  indeed, 
to  which  a  person  may  thus  attain,  without  so  much  as  turning 
over  a  single  leaf  of  this  Bible,  whereas  Christ  knew  no  other 
way  of  leading  us  to  the  knowledge  of  himself,  at  least  has  pre¬ 
scribed  no  other,  but  by  searching  the  Scriptures,  with  reliance 
upon  his  Holy  Spirit. 

A  person  may,  however,  by  this  short  and  easy  method,  become 
as  orthodox  as  the  apostle  Paul  (if  such  superficial  professions, 


132 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


such  mere  hearsay  verbal  repetitions  can  be  called  orthodoxy)  with¬ 
out  ever  once  consulting  the  Bible,  or  so  much  as  putting  up  a  single 
petition  for  the  Holy  Spirit  to  guide  him  into  all  truth,  to  open  his 
understanding  to  know  the  Scriptures;  for,  his  form  of  sound  wrords 
truly  believed,  if  it  happen  to  be  right,  must,  without  more  ado,  in¬ 
fallibly  secure  his  orthodoxy.  Thrice  happy  expedient!  But  is 
there  no  latitudinarianism  in  all  this?  Is  not  this  taking  a  latitude, 
in  devising  wTays  and  means  for  accomplishing  Divine  and  saving 
purposes,  which  the  Divine  law  has  nowhere  prescribed,  for  which 
the  Scriptures  nowhere  afford  us  either  precept  or  precedent?  Un¬ 
less  it  can  be  shown  that  making  human  standards  to  determine  the 
doctrine,  worship,  discipline,  and  government  of  the  Church  for 
the  purpose  of  preserving  her  unity  and  purity,  and  requiring  an 
approbation  of  them  as  a  term  of  communion  is  a  Scripture  insti¬ 
tution. 

Far  be  it  from  us,  in  the  meantime,  to  allege  that  the  Church 
should  not  make  every  Scriptural  exertion  in  her  power  to  preserve 
her  unity  and  purity;  to  teach  and  train  up  her  members  in  the 
knowledge  of  all  divinely  revealed  truth;  or  to  say  that  the  evils 
above  complained  of  attach  to  all  that  are  in  the  habit  of  using 
the  aforesaid  helps;  or  that  this  wretched  state  of  things,  however, 
general,  necessarily  proceeds  from  the  legitimate  use  of  such;  but 
rather  and  entirely  from  the  abuse  of  them,  which  is  the  very  and 
thing  that  wre  are  all  along  opposing  wdien  wre  allude  to  those  sub¬ 
ordinate  standards.  (An  appellation  this,  by  the  by,  which  appears 
to  us  highly  paradoxical,  if  not  utterly  inconsistent,  and  full  of 
confusion.) 

Proper  Use  of  Creeds  and  Catechisms.  But,  however  this  may  be, 
we  are  by  no  means  to  be  understood  as  at  all  wishing  to  deprive 
our  fellowr-Christians  of  any  necessary  and  possible  assistance  to 
understand  the  Scriptures,  or  to  come  to  a  distinct  and  particular 
knowledge  of  every  truth  they  contain,  for  which  purpose  the 
Westminster  Confession  and  Catechism  may,  with  many  other  excel¬ 
lent  performances,  prove  eminently  useful.  But,  having  served  our¬ 
selves  of  these,  let  our  profiting  appear  to  all,  by  our  manifest 
acquaintance  with  the  Bible;  by  making  our  profession  of  faith 
and  obedience;  by  declaring  its  Divine  dictates,  in  which  wre  ac¬ 
quiesce,  as  the  subject-matter  and  rule  of  both;  in  our  ability  to 
take  the  Scripture  in  its  connection  upon  these  subjects,  so  as  to 
understand  one  part  of  it  by  the  assistance  of  another;  and  in 
manifesting  our  self-knowdedge,  our  knowledge  of  the  wray  of  sal¬ 
vation  and  of  the  mystery  of  the  Christian  life,  in  the  express  light 
of  Divine  revelation,  by  a  direct  and  immediate  reference  to,  and 
correct  repetition  of  what  it  declares  upon  those  subjects. 

We  take  it  for  granted  that  no  man  either  knows  God,  or  himself, 
or  the  way  of  salvation,  but  in  so  far  as  he  has  heard  and  under¬ 
stood  his  voice  upon  those  subjects,  as  addressed  to  him  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  that,  therefore,  wdiatever  he  has  heard  and  learned 
of  a  saving  nature,  is  contained  in  the  express  terms  of  the  Bible. 


The  Appendix 


133 


If  so,  in  the  express  terms,  in  and  by  which  “he  hath  heard  and 
learned  of  the  Father;  ”  let  him  declare  it.  This  by  no  means  for¬ 
bids  him  to  use  helps,  but,  we  humbly  presume,  will  effectually  pre¬ 
vent  him  from  resting’  either  in  them  or  upon  them,  which  is  the 
evil  so  justly  complained  of ;  from  taking  up  with  the  directory 
instead  of  the  object  to  which  it  directs.  Thus  will  the  whole  sub¬ 
ject  of  his  faith  and  duty,  in  so  far  as  he  has  attained,  be  ex¬ 
pressly  declared  in  a  ‘  ‘  Thus  saith  the  Lord. 7  ’  and  is  it  not  worthy 
of  remark,  that  of  whatever  use  other  books  may  be,  to  direct  and 
lead  us  to  the  Bible,  or  to  prepare  and  assist  us  to  understand  it, 
yet  the  Bible  never  directs  us  to  any  book  but  itself. 

Superiority  of  the  Bible.  When  we  come  forward,  we,  as  Chris¬ 
tians,  to  be  received  by  the  Church,  which,  properly  speaking,  has 
but  one  book,  ‘  ‘  For  to  it  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God, ?  ’  let 
us  hear  of  none  else.  Is  it  not  upon  the  credible  profession  of  our 
faith  in,  and  obedience  to  its  Divine  contents,  that  the  Church  is 
bound  to  receive  applicants  for  admission?  And  does  not  a  profes¬ 
sion  of  our  faith  an  dobedience  necessarily  presuppose  a  knowledge 
of  the  dictates  we  profess  to  believe  and  obey?  Surely  then,  we 
can  declare  them,  and  as  surely,  if  our  faith  and  obedience  be 
Divine,  as  to  the  subject-matter,  rule,  and  reason  of  them,  it  must 
be  a  “Thus  saith  the  Lord”:  if  otherwise,  they  are  merely  human, 
being  taught  by  the  precepts  of  men. 

In  the  case  then  before  us,  that  is,  examination  for  Church- 
membership,  let  the  question  no  longer  be,  What  does  any  human 
system  say  of  the  primitive  or  present  state  of  man?  of  the 
person,  offices,  and  relations  of  Christ,  etc.,  etc.?  or  of  this,  that, 
or  the  other  duty?  but,  What  says  the  Bible?  Were  this  mode 
of  precedure  adopted,  how  much  better  acquainted  with  their  Bibles 
would  Christians  be?  What  an  important  alteration  would  it  also 
make  in  the  education  of  youth?  Would  it  not  lay  all  candidates 
for  admission  into  the  Church  under  the  happy  necessity  of  be¬ 
coming  particularly  acquainted  with  the  holy  Scriptures?  whereas, 
according  to  the  present  practice,  thousands  know  little  about 
them. 

A  Further  Objection.  One  thing  still  remains  that  may  appear 
matter  of  difficulty  or  objection  to  some,  namely,  that  such  a  close 
adherence  to  the  express  letter  of  the  Divine  word,  as  we  seem  to 
propose,  for  the  restoration  and  maintenance  of  Christian  unity, 
would  not  only  interfere  with  the  free  communication  of  our  sen¬ 
timents  one  to  another  upon  religious  subjects,  but  must,  of  course, 
also  necessarily  interfere  with  the  public  preaching  and  expound¬ 
ing  of  the  Scriptures  for  the  edification  of  the  Church.  Such  as 
feel  disposed  to  make  this  objection,  should  justly  consider  that 
one  of  a  similar  nature,  and  quite  as  plausible,  might  be  made  to 
the  adoption  of  human  standards,  especially  when  made  as  some 
of  them  confessedly  are,  “the  standard  for  all  matters  of  doc¬ 
trine,  worship,  discipline,  and  government.  ’  ’ 

In  such  a  case  it  might,  with  as  much  justice,  at  least,  be  ob- 


134 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


jected  to  the  adopters:  You  have  now  no  more  use  for  the  Bible; 
you  have  got  another  book,  which  you  have  adopted  as  a  standard 
for  all  religious  purposes;  you  have  no  further  use  for  explaining 
the  Scriptures,  either  as  to  matter  of  faith  or  duty,  for  this  you 
have  confessedly  done  already  in  your  standard,  wherein  you 
have  determined  all  matters  of  this  nature.  You  also  profess  to 
hold  fast  the  form  of  sound  words,  which  you  have  thus  adopted, 
and  therefore  you  must  never  open  your  mouth  upon  any  subject 
in  any  other  terms  than  those  of  your  standard.  In  the  mean¬ 
time,  would  any  of  the  parties  which  has  thus  adopted  its  re¬ 
spective  standard,  consider  any  of  these  charges  just?  If  not,  let 
them  do  as  they  would  be  done  bv.  We  must  confess,  however, 
that  for  our  part,  we  cannot  see  how,  with  any  shadow  of  consis¬ 
tency,  some  of  them  could  clear  themselves,  especially  of  the  first; 
that  is  to  say,  if  words  have  any  determinate  meaning;  for  cer¬ 
tainly  it  would  appear  almost,  if  not  altogether  incontrovertible, 
that  a  book  adopted  by  any  party  as  its  standard  for  all  matters 
of  doctrine,  worship,  discipline,  and  government,  must  be  con¬ 
sidered  as  the  Bible  of  that  party. 

And  after  all  that  can  be  said  in  favor  of  such  a  performance, 
be  it  called  Bible,  standard,  or  what  it  may,  it  is  neither  anything 
more  nor  better  than  the  judgment  or  opinion  of  the  party  com¬ 
posing  or  adopting  it,  and,  therefore,  wants  the  sanction  of  a 
Divine  authority,  except  in  the  opinion  of  the  party  which  ha$ 
thus  adopted  it.  But  can  the  opinion  of  any  party,  be  it  ever  so 
respectable,  give  the  stamp  of  a  Divine  authority  to  its  judgments? 
If  not,  then  every  human  standard  is  deficient  in  this  leading, 
all-important,  and  indispensable  property  of  a  rule  or  standard 
for  the  doctrine,  worship,  discipline,  and  government  of  the  Church 
of  God.  But,  without  insisting  further  upon  the  intrinsic  and  ir¬ 
remediable  deficiency  of  human  standards  for  the  above  purpose 
(which  is  undeniably  evident  if  it  be  granted  that  a  Divine  author¬ 
ity  is  indispensably  necessary  to  constitute  a  standard  or  rule  for 
Divine  things,  such  as  is  the  constitution  and  managements,  the 
faith,  and  worship  of  the  Christian  Church),  we  would  humbly 
ask,  Would  any  of  the  parties  consider  as  just  the  foregoing  ob¬ 
jections,  however  conclusive  and  well  founded  all  or  any  of  them 
may  appear?  We  believe  they  would  not. 

And  may  we  not  with  equal  consistency  hold  fast  the  expressly 
revealed  will  of  God,  in  the  very  terms  in  which  it  is  expressed  in 
his  holy  word,  as  the  very  expression  of  our  faith  and  express  rule 
of  our  duty,  and  yet  take  the  same  liberty  that  they  do,  notwith¬ 
standing  their  professed  and  steadfast  adherence  to  their  respec¬ 
tive  standards?  We  find  they  do  not  cease  to  expound,  because 
they  have  already  expounded,  as  before  alleged,  nor  yet  do  they 
always  confine  themselves  to  the  exeprss  terms  of  their  respective 
standards,  yet  they  acknowledge  them  to  be  their  standards  and 
profess  to  hold  them  fast.  Yea,  moreover,  some  of  them  profress, 
and,  if  we  may  conclude  from  facts,  we  believe  each  of  them  is 


The  Appendix 


135 


disposed  to  defend  by  occasional  vindications  (or  testimonies,  as 
some  call  them)  the  sentiments  they  have  adopted  and  engrossed 
in  their  standards,  without  at  the  same  time  requiring  an  appro¬ 
bation  of  those  occasional  performances  as  a  term  of  communion. 
And  what  should  hinder  us,  or  any,  adopting  the  Divine  standard, 
as  aforesaid,  with  equal  consistency  to  do  the  same  for  the  vin¬ 
dication  of  the  Divine  truths  expressly  revealed  and  enjoined 
therein? 

To  say  that  we  cannot  believe  and  profess  the  truth,  under¬ 
stand  one  another,  inculcate  and  vindicate  the  faith  and  law  of 
Christ,  or  do  the  duties  incumbent  upon  Christians  or  a  Christian 
Church  without  a  human  standard,  is  not  only  saying'  that  such  a 
standard  is  quite  essential  to  the  very  being  of  Christianity,  and, 
of  course,  must  have  existed  before  a  Church  was  or  cou]d  be 
formed,  but  it  is  also  saying,  that  without  such  a  standard,  the 
Bible  would  be  quite  inadequate  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  duty,  or, 
rather,  of  no  use  at  all,  except  to  furnish  materials  for  such  a 
work;  whereas  the  Church  of  Ephesus,  long  before  we  have  any 
account  of  the  existence  of  such  a  standard,  is  not  only  mentioned, 
with  many  others,  as  in  a  state  of  existence,  and  of  high  attain¬ 
ments  too,  but  is  also  commended  for  her  vigilance  and  fidelity  in 
detecting  and  rejecting  false  apostles.  “Thou  hast  tried  them 
which  say  they  are  apostles,  and  are  not,  and  hast  found  them 
liars.  ’  ’  But  should  any  pretend  to  say  that  although  such  per¬ 
formances  be  not  essential  to  the  very  being  of  the  Church,  yet 
are  they  highly  conducive  to  its  wellbeing  and  perfection.  For 
the  confutation  of  such  an  assertion,  we  would  again  appeal  to 
Church  history  and  existing  facts  and  leave  the  judicious  and  in¬ 
telligent  Christian  to  determine. 

Further  Defense  Against  Latitudinarianism.  If  after  all  that 
has  been  said,  any  should  still  pretend  to  affirm  that  the  plan  we 
profess  to  adopt  and  recommend  is  truly  latitudinarian,  in  the 
worst  and  fullest  sense  of  the  term,  inasmuch  as  it  goes  to  make 
void  all  human  efforts  to  maintain  the  unity  and  purity  of  the 
Church,  by  substituting  a  vague  and  indefinite  approbation  of  the 
Scriptures  as  an  alternative  for  creeds,  confessions,  and  testimo¬ 
nies,  and  thereby  opens  a  wide  door  for  the  reception  of  all  sorts  of 
characters  and  opinions  into  the  Church.  Were  we  not  convinced 
by  experience,  that  notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  said,  such 
objections  would  likely  be  made,  or  that  some  weak  persons  might 
possibly  consider  them  as  good  as  demonstration,  especially  when 
proceeding  from  highly  influential  characters  (and  there  have  not 
been  wanting  such  in  all  ages  to  oppose,  under  various  plausible 
pretenses,  the  unity  and  peace  of  the  Church),  were  it  not  for 
these  considerations,  we  should  content  ourselves  with  what  "we 
have  already  advanced  upon  the  whole  of  the  subject,  as  being 
well  assured  that  duly  attended  to,  there  would  not  be  the  least 
room  for  such  an  objection;  but  to  prevent  if  possible  such  un- 


136 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


founded  conclusions,  or  if  this  can  not  be  done,  to  caution  and 
assist  the  too  credulous  and  unwary  professor,  that  he  may  not 
be  carried  away  all  at  once  with  the  high-toned  confidence  of 
bold  assertion,  we  would  refer  him  to  the  overture  for  union  in 
truth  contained  in  the  foregoing  address. 

Union  in  truth,  among  all  the  manifest  subjects  of  grace  and 
truth,  is  what  we  advocate.  We  carry  our  views  of  union  no  fur¬ 
ther  than  this,  nor  do  we  presume  to  recommend  it  upon  any  other 
principle  than  truth  alone.  Now,  surely,  truth  is  something  cer¬ 
tain  and  definite;  if  not,  who  will  take  upon  him  to  define  and 
determine  it?  This  we  suppose  God  has  sufficiently  done  already 
in  his  holy  word.  That  men  therefore  truly  receive  and  make  the 
proper  use  of  the  Divine  word  for  walking  together  in  truth  and 
peace,  in  holiness  and  charity,  is,  no  doubt,  the  ardent  desire  of 
all  the  genuine  subjects  of  our  holy  religion.  This,  we  see,  how¬ 
ever,  they  have  not  done,  to  the  awful  detriment  and  manifest  sub¬ 
version  of  what  we  might  almost  call  the  primary  intention  of 
Christianity. 

We  dare  not,  therefore,  follow  their  example,  nor  adopt  their 
ruinous  expedients.  But  does  it  therefore  follow  that  Christians 
may  not,  or  cannot  take  proper  steps  to  ascertain  that  desirable 
and  preceptive  unity  which  the  Divine  word  requires  and  enjoins? 
Surely  no ;  at  least  we  have  supposed  no  such  thing ;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  have  overtured  to  our  brethern  what  appears  to  us  un¬ 
deniably  just  and  Scripturally  evident,  and  which,  we  humbly 
think,  if  adopted  and  acted  upon,  would  have  the  desired  effect; 
adopted  and  acted  upon,  not  indeed  as  a  standard  for  the  doc¬ 
trine,  worship,  discipline,  and  government  of  the  Church,  for  it 
pretends  not  to  determine  these  matters,  but  rather  supposes  the 
existence  of  a  fixed  and  certain  standard  of  Divine  original,  in 
which  everything  that  the  wisdom  of  God  saw  meet  to  reveal  and 
determine,  for  these  and  all  other  purposes,  is  expressly  defined 
and  determined;  between  the  Christian  and  which,  no  medium  of 
human  determination  ought  to  be  interposed.  In  all  this  there  is 
surely  nothing  like  the  denial  of  any  lawful  effort  to  promote  and 
maintain  the  Church ’s  unity,  though  there  be  a  refusal  of  the  un¬ 
warrantable  interposition  of  an  unauthorized  and  assuming  power. 

Reasons  for  Writing  the  Appendix.  Let  none  imagine  that  we 
are  here  determining  upon  the  merits  of  the  overture  to  which,  in 
the  case  before  us,  we  find  it  necessary  to  appeal  in  our  own  de¬ 
fense  against  the  injustice  of  the  supposed  charge  above  specified. 
To  the  judgment  of  our  brethren  have  we  referred  that  matter, 
and  with  them  we  leave  it.  All  we  intend,  therefore,  is  to  avail 
ourselves  so  far  of  what  we  have  done,  as  to  show  that  we  have  no 
intention  whatsoever  of  substituting  a  vague  indefinite  approbation 
of  the  Scriptures  as  an  alternative  for  creeds,  confessions,  and 
testimonies,  for  the  purpose  of  restoring  the  Church  to  her  original 
constitutional  unity  and  purity.  In  avoiding  Scylla  we  would 
cautiously  guard  against  being  wrecked  upon  Charybdis.  Ex- 


The  Appendix 


137 


tremes,  we  are  told,  are  dangerous.  We  therefore  suppose  a  mid¬ 
dle  way,  a  safe  way,  so  plainly  marked  out  by  unerring  wisdom, 
that  if  duly  attended  to  under  the  Divine  direction,  the  wayfar¬ 
ing  men,  though  fools,  need  not  err  therein,  and  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  God:  “For  he  hath  chosen  the  foolish  things  of  the 
world  to  confound  the  things  that  are  wise.” 

We  therefore  conclude  it  must  be  a  plain  way,  a  way  most  gra¬ 
ciously  and  most  judiciously  adapted  to  the  capacity  of  the  sub¬ 
jects,  and  consequently  not  the  way  of  subscribing  or  otherwise 
approving  human  standards  as  a  term  of  admission  into  his  Church, 
as  a  test  and  defense  of  orthodoxy,  which  even  the  compilers  them¬ 
selves  are  not  always  agreed  about,  and  which  nineteen  out  of 
twenty  of  the  Lord ’s  people  cannot  thoroughly  understand.  It 
must  be  away  very  far  remote  from  logical  subtilities  and  meta¬ 
physical  speculations,  and  as  such  we  have  taken  it  up,  upon  the 
plainest  and  most  obvious  principles  of  Divine  revelations  and  com¬ 
mon  sense — the  common  sense,  we  mean,  of  Christians,  exercised 
upon  the  plainest  and  most  obvious  truths  and  facts  divinely  rec¬ 
orded  for  their  instruction. 

Hence  we  have  supposed,  in  the  first  place,  the  true  discrimina¬ 
tion  of  Christian  character  to  consist  in  an  intelligent  profession 
of  our  faith  in  Christ  and  obedience  to  him  in  all  things  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  Scriptures,  the  reality  of  which  profession  is  manifested 
by  the  holy  consistency  of  the  tempers  and  conduct  of  the  pro¬ 
fessors  with  the  express  dictates  and  approved  examples  of  the 
Divine  word.  Hence  we  have  humility,  faith,  piety,  temperance, 
justice,  charity,  etc.,  professed  and  manifested,  in  the  first  in¬ 
stance,  by  the  persons  professing  with  self-application  the  convinc¬ 
ing,  humbling,  encouraging,  pious,  temperate,  just  and  charitable 
doctrines  and  precepts  of  the  inspired  volume,  as  exhibited  and 
enforced  in  its  holy  and  approved  examples,  and  the  sincerity  of 
this  profession  evidently  manifested  by  the  consistency  of  the  pro¬ 
fessor  ’s  temper  and  conduct  with  the  entire  subject  of  his  pro¬ 
fession,  either  by  an  irreprovable  conformity,  like  good  Zachariah 
and  Elisabeth,  which  is  of  all  things  most  desirable,  or  otherwise, 
in  case  of  any  visible  failure,  by  an  apparently  sincere  repentance 
and  evident  reformation. 

Such  professors,  and  such  only,  have  we  supposed  to  be,  by 
common  consent,  truly  worthy  the  Christian  name.  Ask  from  the 
one  end  of  heaven  to  the  other,  the  whole  number  of  such  intelli¬ 
gent  and  consistent  professors  as  we  intend  and  have  described, 
and,  we  humbly  presume,  there  will  not  be  found  one  dissenting 
voice.  They  will  all  acknowledge,  with  one  consent,  that  the  true 
discrimination  of  Christian  character  consists  in  these  things,  and 
that  the  radical  or  manifest  want  of  any  of  the  aforesaid  proper¬ 
ties  completely  destroys  the  character. 

Adequacy  of  the  Bible.  We  have  here  only  taken  for  granted 
what  we  suppose  no  rational  professor  will  venture  to  deny;  namely: 
that  the  Divine  word  contains  an  ample  sufficiency  upon  every  one 


138 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


of  the  foregoing  topics  to  stamp  the  above  character,  if  so  be 
that  the  impressions  which  its  express  declarations  are  obviously 
calculated  to  produce  be  truly  received;  for  instance,  suppose  a 
person  profess  to  believe,  with  application  to  himself,  that  whole 
description  of  human  depravity  and  wretchedness  which  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  exhibit  of  fallen  man,  in  the  express  declaration  and  dismal 
examples  of  human  wickedness  therein  recorded,  contrasted  with 
the  holy  nature,  the  righteous  requirements,  and  inflexible  justice 
of  an  infinitely  holy,  just,  and  jealous  God,  would  not  the  subject- 
matter  of  such  a  profession  be  amply  sufficient  to  impress  the  be¬ 
lieving  mind  with  the  most  profound  humility,  self-abhorrence, 
and  dreadful  apprehension  of  the  tremendous  effects  of  sin? 

Again,  should  the  person  profess  to  believe,  in  connection  with 
this,  all  that  the  Scriptures  declare  of  the  sovereign  love,  mercy, 
and  condescension  of  God  toward  guilty,  depraved,  rebellious  man, 
as  the  same  is  manifested  in  Christ,  and  in  all  the  gracious  dec¬ 
larations,  invitations,  and  promises  that  are  made  in  and  through 
him  for  the  relief  and  encouragement  of  the  guilty,  etc.,  would 
not  all  this,  taken  together,  be  sufficient  to  impress  the  believing 
mind  with  the  most  lively  confidence,  gratitude,  and  love?  Should 
this  person,  moreover,  profess  that  delight  and  confidence  in  the 
Divine  Redeemer — that  voluntary  submission  to  him — that  worship 
and  adoration  of  him  which  the  Scriptures  expressly  declare  to  have 
been  the  habits  and  practice  of  his  people,  would  not  the  subject- 
matter  of  this  profession  be  amply  sufficient  to  impress  the  believ¬ 
ing  mind  with  that  dutiful  disposition,  with  that  gracious  venera¬ 
tion  and  supreme  reverence  which  the  word  of  God  requires?  And 
should  not  all  this  taken  together  satisfy  the  Church,  in  so  far,  in 
point  of  profession?  If  not,  there  is  no  alternative  but  a  new  revel¬ 
ation;  seeing  that  to  deny  this,  is  to  assert  that  a  distinct  percep¬ 
tion  and  sincere  profession  of  whatever  the  word  declares  upon 
every  point  of  faith  and  duty,  is  not  only  insufficient,  as  a  doc¬ 
trinal  means,  to  produce  a  just  and  suitable  impression  in  the  mind 
of  the  believing  subject,  but  is  also  insufficient  to  satisfy  the 
Church  as  to  a  just  and  adequate  profession ;  if  otherwise,  then  it 
will  necessarily  follow,  that  not  every  sort  of  character,  but  that 
one  sort  only,  is  admissible  upon  the  principle  we  have  adopted; 
and  that  by  the  universal  consent  of  all  that  we,  at  least,  dare  ven¬ 
ture  to  call  Christian,  this  is  acknowledged  to  be,  exclusively,  the 
true  Christian  character. 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  fixed  point,  a  certain  description  of  char¬ 
acter,  which  combines  in  every  professing  subject  the  Scriptural 
profession,  the  evident  manifestation  of  humility,  faith,  piety,  tem¬ 
perance,  justice,  and  charity,  instructed  by,  and  evidently  answering 
to  the  entire  declaration  of  the  word  upon  each  of  those  topics, 
which,  as  so  many  properties,  serve  to  constitute  the  character. 
Here,  we  say,  we  have  a  fixed,  and  at  the  same  time  sweeping  dis¬ 
tinction,  which,  as  of  old,  manifestly  divides  the  whole  world,  how¬ 
ever  otherwise  distinguished,  into  but  two  classes  only.  “We 


The  Appendix 


139 


know,  ”  said  the  apostle,  evidently  speaking  of  such,  1 1  that  we  are 
of  God,  and  the  whole  world  lieth  in  wickedness.  ’  ’ 

Ethical  Definition  of  A  Christian.  Should  it  be  inquired  con¬ 
cerning  the  persons  included  in  this  description  of  character, 
whether  they  be  Arminians  or  Calvinists,  or  both  promiscuously 
huddled  together?  It  may  be  justly  replied,  that  according  to 
what  we  have  proposed,  they  can  be  nominally  neither,  and  of 
course  not  both,  for  we  call  no  man  master  on  earth,  for  one  is 
our  Master,  even  Christ,  and  all  we  are  brethren,  the  Christians 
by  profession;  and  as  such  abstract  speculation  and  argumenta¬ 
tive  theory  make  no  part  either  of  our  profession  or  practice. 
Such  professors,  then,  as  we  intend  and  have  described,  are  just 
what  their  profession  and  practice  make  them  to  be ;  and  this  we 
hope  has  been  Scripturallv,  and  we  might  add,  satisfactorily  de¬ 
fined,  in  so  far,  at  least,  as  the  limits  of  so  brief  a  performance 
would  admit.  We  also  entertain  the  pleasing  confidence  that  the 
plan  of  procedure  which  we  have  ventured  to  suggest,  if  duly  at¬ 
tended  to,  if  fully  reduced  to  practice,  would  necessarily  secure  to 
the  professing  subject  all  the  advantages  of  divinely  revealed 
truth,  without  any  liability  to  conceal,  to  diminish,  or  to  misrep¬ 
resent  it,  as  it  goes  immediately  to  ascribe  everything  to  God  re¬ 
specting  his  sovereignty,  independence,  power,  wisdom,  goodness, 
justice,  truth,  holiness,  mercy,  condescension,  love,  and  grace, 
etc.,  which  is  ascribed  to  him  in  his  word,  as  also  to  receive  what¬ 
ever  it  declares  concerning  the  absolute  dependence  of  the  poor, 
guilty,  depraved,  polluted  creature,  upon  the  Divine  will,  power, 
and  grace  for  every  saving  purpose;  a  just  perception  and  cor¬ 
respondent  profession  of  which,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  is 
supposed  to  constitute  that  fundamental  ingredient  in  Christian 
character:  true  evangelical  humility.  And  so  of  the  rest. 

Having  thus,  we  hope,  Scripturallv  and  evidently  determined 
the  character,  with  the  proper  mode  of  ascertaining  it,  to  the  sat¬ 
isfaction  of  all  concerned,  we  next  proceed  to  affirm,  with  the 
same  Scriptural  evidence,  that  among  such,  however  situated, 
whether  in  the  same  or  similar  associations,  there  ought  to  be  no 
schisms,  no  uncharitable  divisions,  but  that  they  ought  all  mutually 
to  receive  and  acknowledge  each  other  as  brethren.  As  to  the 
truth  of  this  assertion,  they  are  all  likewise  agreed,  without  one 
dissenting  voice.  We  next  suggest  that  for  this  purpose  they 
ought  all  to  walk  by  the  same  rule,  to  mind  and  speak  the  same 
thing,  etc.,  and  that  this  rule  is,  and  ought  to  be,  the  Divine  stan¬ 
dard.  Here  again  we  presume  there  can  be  no  objection;  no,  not 
a  single  dissenting  voice. 

The  New  Testament  the  Bale.  As  to  the  rule  itself,  we  have 
ventured  to  allege  that  the  New  Testament  is  the  proper  and  im¬ 
mediate  rule,  directory,  and  formula  for  the  New  Testament 
Church,  and  for  the  particular  duties  of  Christians,  as  the 
Old  Testament  fast  for  the  Old  Testament  Church,  and  for 


140 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


the  particular  duties  of  the  subject  under  that  dispensation; 
at  the  same  time  by  no  means  excluding  the  Old  as  fundamental 
to,  illustrative  of,  and  inseparably  connected  with  the  New,  and  as 
being  every  way  of  equal  authority,  as  well  as  of  an  entire  same¬ 
ness  with  it  in  every  point  of  moral  natural  duty,  though  not  im¬ 
mediately  our  rule,  without  the  intervention  and  coincidence  of 
the  New,  in  which  our  Lord  has  taught  his  people,  by  the  ministry 
of  his  holy  apostles,  all  things  whatsoever  they  should  observe  and 
do,  till  the  end  of  the  world.  Thus  we  come  to  the  one  rule,  tak¬ 
ing  the  Old  Testament  as  explained  and  perfected  by  the  New, 
and  the  New  as  illustrated  and  enforced  by  the  Old;  as¬ 
suming  the  latter  as  the  proper  and  immediate  directory  for  the 
Christian  Church,  as  also  for  the  positive  and  particular  duties  of 
Christians  as  to  all  things  whatsoever  they  should  observe  and  do. 
Further,  that  in  the  observance  of  his  Divine  rule,  this  authentic 
and  infallible  directory,  all  such  may  come  to  the  desirable  coin¬ 
cidence  of  holy  unity  and  uniformity  of  profession  and  practice, 
we  have  overtured  that  they  all  speak,  profess,  and  practice  the 
very  same  things  that  are  exhibited  upon  the  sacred  page  of  New 
Testament  Scripture,  as  spoken  and  done  by  the  Divine  appoint¬ 
ment  and  approbation ;  and  that  this  be  extended  to  every  possible 
instance  of  uniformity,  without  addition  or  diminution,  without  in¬ 
troducing  anything  of  private  opinion  or  doubtful  disputation  into 
the  public  profession  or  practice  of  the  Church. 

Thus  and  thus  have  we  overturned  to  all  intents  and  purposes, 
as  may  be  clearly  seen  by  consulting  the  overture  itself;  in  which, 
however,  should  anything  appear  not  sufficiently  explicit,  we  flat¬ 
ter  ourselves  it  may  be  fully  understood  by  taking  into  considera¬ 
tion  what  has  been  variously  suggested  upon  this  important  sub¬ 
ject  throughout  the  whole  of  these  premises;  so  that  if  any  due 
degree  of  attention  be  paid,  we  should  think  it  next  to  impossible 
that  we  could  be  so  far  misunderstood  as  to  be  charged  with  lati- 
tudinarianism  in  any  usual  sense  of  the  word.  Here  we  have  pro¬ 
posed  but  one  description  of  character  as  eligible,  or,  indeed,  as  at 
all  admissible  to  the  rights  and  privileges  of  Christianity.  This 
description  of  character  we  have  defined  by  certain  and  distin¬ 
guishing  properties,  which  not  only  serve  to  distinguish  it  from 
every  other,  but  in  which  all  the  real  subjects  themselves  are 
agreed,  without  one  exneption,  all  such  being  mutually  and  recip¬ 
rocally  acknowledged  by  each  other  as  legitimate  members  of  the 
Church  of  God.  All  these,  moreover,  agreeing  in  the  indispensable 
obligation  of  their  unity,  and  in  the  one  rule  by  which  it  is  in¬ 
structed,  and  also  in  the  preceptive  necessity  of  an  entire  uni¬ 
formity  in  their  public  profession  and  managements  for  promoting 
and  preserving  this  unity,  that  there  should  be  no  schism  in  the 
body,  but  that  all  the  members  should  have  the  same  care  one  for 
another;  yet  in  many  instance,  unhappily,  and,  we  may  truly  say, 
involuntarily  differing  through  mistake  and  mismanagement,  which 
it  is  our  humble  desire  and  endeavor  to  detect  and  remove,  by 


The  Appendix 


141 


obviating’  everything’  that  causeth  difference,  being  persuaded  that 
as  truth  is  one  and  indivisible  wherever  it  exists,  so  all  the  genuine 
subjects  of  it,  if  disentangled  from  artificial  impediments,  must 
and  will  necessarily  fall  in  together,  be  all  on  one  side,  united  in 
one  profession,  acknowledge  each  other  as  brethren,  and  love  as 

children  of  the  same  family. 

*/ 

For  this  purpose  we  have  overturned  a  certain  and  determinate 
application  of  the  rule,  to  which  we  presume  there  can  be  no  reason¬ 
able  objection,  and  which,  if  adopted  and  acted  upon,  must,  we 
think,  infallibly  produce  the  desired  effect;  unless  we  should  sup¬ 
pose  that  to  say  and  do  what  is  expressly  said  and  done  before  our 
eyes  upon  the  sacred  page,  would  offend  the  believer,  or  that  a  strict 
uniformity,  an  entire  Scriptural  sameness  in  profession  and  practice 
would  produce  divisions  and  offenses  among  those  who  are  already 
united  in  one  spirit,  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  hope 
of  their  calling,  and  in  one  God  and  Father  of  all  who  is  above 
all,  and  through  all  and  in  them  all,  as  is  confessedly  the  case  with 
all  of  this  character  throughout  all  the  Churches.  To  induce  to 
this  we  have  also  attempted  to  call  their  attention  to  the  heinous 
nature  and  awful  consequences  of  schism,  and  to  that  evil  anti- 
scriptural  principle  from  which  it  necessarily  proceeds. 

We  have  likewise  endeavored  to  show,  we  humbly  think  with 
demonstrable  evidence,  that  there  is  no  alternative  but  either  to 
adopt  that  Scriptural  uniformity  we  have  recommended,  or  else 
continue  as  we  are,  bewildered  in  schisms  and  overwhelmed  with 
the  accursed  evils  inseparable  from  such  a  state.  It  remains  now 
with  our  brethren  to  determine  upon  the  whole  of  these  premises, 
to  adopt  or  to  reject,  as  they  see  cause;  but,  in  the  meantime,  let 
none  impeach  us  with  the  latitudinarian  expedient  of  substituting 
a  vague,  indefinite  approbation  of  the  holy  Scriptures  as  an  al¬ 
ternative  for  the  present  practice  of  making  the  approbation  of 
human  standards  a  term  of  communion ;  as  it  is  undeniably  evident 
that  nothing  can  be  further  from  our  intention. 

The  Opposite  of  Latitudinarian.  Were  we  to  judge  of  what 
we  humbly  propose  and  urge  as  indispensably  necessary  for  the  re¬ 
formation  and  unity  of  the  Church,  we  should  rather  apprehend 
that  there  wTas  reason  to  fear  a  charge  of  a  very  different  nature; 
namely :  that  we  aimed  at  too  much  strictness,  both  as  to  the 
description  of  character  which  we  say  ought  only  to  be  admitted, 
and  also  as  to  the  use  and  application  of  the  rule.  But  should  this 
be  the  case,  we  shall  cheerfully  bear  with  it,  as  being  fully  satis¬ 
fied  that  not  only  the  common  sentiment  of  all  apparently  sincere, 
intelligent,  and  practical  Christians  is  on  our  side,  but  that  also 
the  plainest  and  most  ample  testimonies  of  the  inspired  volume  suf¬ 
ficiently  attest  the  truth  and  propriety  of  what  we  plead  for,  as 
essential  to  the  Scriptural  unity  and  purity  of  the  Christian  Church, 
and  this,  we  humbly  presume,  is  what  we  should  incessantly  aim  at. 
It  would  be  strange,  indeed,  if  in  contending  earnestly  for  the  faith 


142 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


once  delivered  to  the  saints,  we  should  overlook  those  fruits  of 
righteousness,  that  manifest  humility,  piety,  temperance,  justice, 
and  charity,  without  which  faith  itself  is  dead,  being  alone.  We 
trust  we  have  not  so  learned  Christ;  if  so  be  we  have  been  taught 
by  him  as  the  truth  is  in  Jesus,  we  must  have  learned  a  very  dif¬ 
ferent  lesson  indeed.  While  we  would,  therefore,  insist  upon  an  en¬ 
tire  conformity  to  the  Scriptures  in  profession,  that  we  might  all 
believe  and  speak  the  same  things,  and  thus  be  perfectly  joined 
together  in  the  same  mind  and  in  the  same  judgment,  we  would, 
with  equal  scrupulosity,  insist  upon  and  look  for  an  entire  con¬ 
formity  to  them  in  practice,  in  all  those  whom  we  acknowledge  as 
our  brethren  in  Christ.  1 1  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.  ’  ’ 
“Not  every  one  saith  unto  me,  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven;  but  he  that  doetli  the  will  of  my  Father  which 
is  in  heaven.  Therefore  whosoever  hearetli  those  sayings  of  mine, 
and  doeth  them  not,  shall  be  likened  unto  a  foolish  man  which 
built  his  house  upon  the  sand.  Woe  unto  you  scribes  and  Pharisees, 
hypocrites,  for  ye  say  and  do  not.  ’  ’ 

We  therefore  conclude  that  to  advocate  unity  alone,  however 
desirable  in  itself,  without  at  the  same  time  purging  the  Church  of 
apparently  unsanctified  characters,  even  of  all  that  cannot  show 
their  faith  by  their  works,  would  be,  at  best,  but  a  poor,  super¬ 
ficial,  skindeep  reformation.  It  is  from  such  characters,  then, 
as  the  proposed  reformation,  if  carried  into  effect,  would  entirely 
deprive  of  a  name  and  a  place  in  the  Church,  that  we  have  the 
greatest  reason  to  apprehend  a  determined  and  obstinate  opposi¬ 
tion.  And  alas!  there  are  very  many  of  this  description,  and  in 
many  places,  of  considerable  influence.  But  neither  should  this 
discourage  us,  when  we  consider  the  expressly  revealed  will  of 
God  upon  this  point,  Ezek.  xliv:  6,  9,  with  Matt,  xiii:  15,  17; 
1  Cor.  v:6,  13,  with  many  other  Scriptures.  Nor,  in  the  end,  will 
the  multitude  of  unsanctified  professors  which  the  proposed  refor¬ 
mation  would  necessarily  exclude,  have  any  reason  to  rejoice  in 
the  unfaithfulness  of  those  that  either  through  ignorance,  or  for 
filthy  lucre  sake,  indulged  them  with  a  name  and  place  in  the  Church 
of  God.  These  unfaithful  stewards,  these  now  mistaken  friends, 
will  one  day  be  considered  by  such  as  their  most  cruel  aud  treacher¬ 
ous  enemies. 

These,  then,  are  our  sentiments  upon  the  entire  subject  of 
Church-reformation ;  call  it  latitudinarianism,  or  Puritanism  or 
what  you  please;  and  this  is  the  reformation  for  which  we  plead. 
Thus,  upon  the  whole,  have  we  briefly  attempted  to  point  out  those 
evils,  and  to  prevent  those  mistakes  which  we  earnestly  desire  to 
see  obviated  for  the  general  peace,  welfare,  and  prosperity  of  the 
Church  of  God.  Our  dear  brethren,  giving  credit  to  our  sincere 
and  well-meant  intention,  will  charitably  excuse  the  imperfections 
of  our  humble  performance,  and  by  the  assistance  of  their  better 
judgment  correct  those  mistakes,  and  supply  those  deficiencies 


The  Appendix 


143 


which  in  a  first  attempt  of  this  nature  may  have  escaped  our 
notice. 

Opposition  to  Controversy.  We  are  sorry,  in  the  meantime, 
to  have  felt  a  necessity  of  approaching  so  near  the  borders  of  con¬ 
troversy,  by  briefly  attempting  to  answer  objectives  which  we 
plainly  foresaw  would,  through  mistake  or  prejudice,  be  made 
against  our  proceedings;  controversy  making  no  part  of  our  in¬ 
tended  plan.  But  such  objections  and  surmises  having  already 
reached  our  ears  from  different  quarters,  we  thought  it  necessary 
to  attend  to  them,  that,  by  so  doing,  we  might  not  only  prevent 
mistakes,  but  also  save  our  friends  the  trouble  of  entering  into 
verbal  disputes  in  order  to  remove  them,  and  thus  prevent,  as 
much  as  possible,  that  most  unhappy  of  all  practices  sanctioned 
by  the  plausible  pretense  of  zeal  for  the  truth — religious  contro¬ 
versy  among  professors. 

We  would,  therefore,  humbly  advise  our  friends  to  concur  with 
us  in  our  professed  and  sincere  intention  to  avoid  this  evil  prac¬ 
tice.  Let  it  suffice  to  put  into  the  hands  of  such  as  desire  in¬ 
practice.  Let  it  suffice  to  put  into  the  hands  of  such  as  desire  in¬ 
formation  what  we  hereby  publish  for  that  purpose.  If  this, 
however,  should  not  satisfy,  let  them  give  in  their  objections  in 
writing;  we  shall  thankfully  receive,  and  seriously  consider,  with 
all  due  attention,  whatever  comes  before  us  in  this  way;  but  verbal 
controversy  we  absolutely  refuse.  Let  none  imagine  that  by  so 
saying,  we  mean  to  dissuade  Christians  from  affording  all  the 
assistance  they  can  to  each  other  as  humble  inquirers  after  truth. 
To  decline  this  friendly  office  would  be  to  refuse  the  performance 
of  an  important  duty.  But  certainly  there  is  a  manifest  differ¬ 
ence  between  speaking  the  truth  in  love  for  the  edification  of  our 
brethren,  and  attacking  each  other  with  a  spirit  of  controversial 
hostility,  to  confute  and  prove  each  other  wrong.  We  believe  it 
is  rare  to  find  one  instance  of  this  kind  of  arguing  that  does  not  ter¬ 
minate  in  bitterness.  Let  us,  therefore,  cautiously  avoid  it.  Our 
Lord  says,  Matt.  xvii:7.  ‘‘  Woe  unto  the  world  because  of  offenses. ” 
Scott,  in  his  incomparable  work  lately  published  in  this  country, 
called  his  Family  Bible,  observes  in  his  notes  upon  this  place, 
“that  our  Lord  here  intends  all  these  evils  within  the  Church 
which  prejudice  men’s  minds  against  his  religion,  or  any  doctrines 
of  it.  The  scandalous  lives,  horrible  oppressions,  cruelties,  and 
iniquities  of  men  called  Christians;  their  divisions  and  bloody  con¬ 
tentions  ;  their  idolatries  and  superstitions,  are  at  this  day  the 
great  offenses  and  causes  of  stumbling  to  Jews,  Mohammedans,  and 
pagans  in  all  the  four  quarters  of  the  globe,  and  they  furnish  in¬ 
fields  of  every  description  with  their  most  dangerous  weapons 
against  the  truth.  The  acrimonious  controversies  agitated  among 
those  who  agree  in  the  principal  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  and  their 
mutual  contempt  and  revilings  of  each  other,  together  with  the 
extravagant  notions  and  wicked  practices  found  among  them,  form 


144  The  Christian  Union  Overture 


the  grand  prejudice  in  the  minds  of  multitudes  against  evan¬ 
gelical  religion,  and  harden  the  hearts  of  heretics,  Pharisees,  dis¬ 
guised  infidels,  and  careless  sinners  against  the  truths  of  the  Gos¬ 
pel.  In  these  and  numberless  other  ways,  it  may  be  said:  ‘Woe 
unto  the  world  because  of  offenses, 7  for  the  devil,  the  sower  of  these 
tares,  makes  use  of  them  in  deceiving  the  nations  of  the  earth 
and  in  murdering  the  souls  of  men.  In  the  present  state  of  human 
nature,  it  must  needs  be  that  such  offenses  should  intervene,  and 
God  has  wise  and  righteous  reasons  for  permitting  them;  yet  we 
should  consider  it  as  the  greatest  of  evils  to  be  acessorv  to  the 
destruction  of  souls;  and  an  awful  woe  is  denounced  against  every 
one  whose  delusions  or  crimes  thus  stumble  men  and  set  them 
against  the  only  method  of  salvation.  7  7 

Final  Illustration.  We  conclude  with  an  extract  from  the  Bos¬ 
ton  Anthology,  which,  with  too  many  of  the  same  kind  that  might 
be  adduced,  furnish  a  mournful  comment  upon  the  text;  we  mean, 
upon  the  sorrowful  subject  of  our  woeful  divisions  and  corruptions. 
The  following  reply  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Cram,  missionary  from  Mas¬ 
sachusetts  to  the  Senecas,  was  made  by  the  principal  chiefs  and  war¬ 
riors  of  the  six  nations  in  council  assembled  at  Buffalo  creek, 
State  of  New  York,  in  the  presence  of  the  agent  of  the  United 
States  for  Indian  affairs,  in  the  summer  of  1805.  “I  am  come, 
brethren, 7  7  said  the  missionary,  ‘  ‘  to  enlighten  your  minds  and  to 
instruct  you  how  to  worship  the  Great  Spirit  agreeably  to  his 
will,  and  to  preach  to  you  the  Gospel  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ. 
There  is  but  one  way  to  serve  God,  and  if  you  do  not  embrace  the 
right  way,  you  can  not  be  happy  hereafter. 7  7  To  which  they  re¬ 
ply:  “Brother,  we  understand  that  your  religion  is  written  in  a 
book.  You  say  that  there  is  but  one  way  to  worship  and  serve  the 
Great  Spirit.  If  there  be  but  one  religion,  why  do  you  white 
people  differ  so  much  about  it?  Why  not  all  agree  as  you  can  all 
read  the  book?  Brother,  we  do  not  understand  these  things.  We 
are  told  your  religion  was  given  to  your  forefathers;  we,  also,  have 
a  religion  which  was  given  to  our  forefathers;  it  teaches  us  to  be 
thanlcful  for  all  the  favors  we  receive;  to  love  one  another,  and  to 
be  united.  We  never  quarrel  about  religion.  We  are  told  you  have 
been  preaching  to  the  white  people  in  this  place.  Those  people  are 
our  neighbors,  we  are  acquainted  with  them.  We  will  wait  a  little 
to  see  what  effect  your  preaching  has  upon  them.  If  we  find  it 
does  them  good,  makes  them  honest,  and  less  disposed  to  cheat  In¬ 
dians,  we  will  then  consider  again  of  what  you  have  said. 7  7  Thus 
closed  the  conference.  Alas,  poor  people !  how  do  our  divisions 
and  corruptions  stand  in  your  way!  What  a  pity  that  you  find  us 
not  upon  original  ground,  such  as  the  apostles  left  the  primitive 
Churches!  Had  we  but  exhibited  to  vou  their  unitv  and  charitv; 
their  humble,  honest,  and  affectionate  deportment  toward  each 
other,  and  toward  all  men,  you  would  not  have  had  those  evil  and 
shameful  things  to  object  to  our  holy  religion,  and  to  prejudice 


The  Appendix 


145 


your  minds  against  it.  But  your  conversion,  it  seems,  awaits  our 
reformation;  awaits  our  return  to  primitive  unity  and  love.  To 
this  may  the  God  of  mercy  speedily  restore  us,  both  for  your  sakes 
and  our  own,  that  his  way  may  be  known  upon  earth,  and  his  saving 
health  among  all  nations.  Let  the  people  praise  thee,  O  God;  let 
all  the  people  praise  thee.  Amen,  and  amen. 


II.  COMMENT  UPON  THE  APPENDIX  TO  THE 
DECLARATION  AND  ADDRESS 


HE  DECLARATION  AND  ADDRESS  proper  closes 


■L  with  the  signatures  of  Thomas  Campbell  and 
Thomas  Acheson  the  former  signing  as  secretary  of  the 
new  Association  and  the  latter  as  treasurer.  General 
Acheson  is  now  remembered  almost  entirely  by  reason  of 
his  signature  to  the  Declaration  and  Address.  He  was, 
however,  not  only  one  of  Mr.  Campbell’s  warmest 
friends  but  also  one  of  the  most  influential  men  in  west¬ 
ern  Pennsylvania  at  that  time.  Robert  Richardson 
says  that  no  man  in  the  county  of  Washington  had  more 
influence  than  Thomas  Acheson.  He  had  been  Lieuten¬ 
ant  Colonel  Commandant  of  the  22d  Regiment,  Pennsyl¬ 
vania  Militia  and  he  was  universally  respected  and 
honored  by  his  contemporaries.  Doubtless  most  people 
regarded  his  name  as  being  far  more  significant  than 
that  of  Thomas  Campbell,  but  history  has  reversed  the 
verdict  of  contemporary  opinion. 

The  Appendix  constitutes  about  three-fifths  of  the 
total  material  found  in  the  Declaration  and  Address. 
Some  very  valuable  passages  are  contained  in  it  although 
the  substance  is  in  large  measure  identical  with  the  plea 
of  the  Declaration  proper.  The  purpose  of  the  author  in 
preparing  this  supplementary  material  is  stated  to  be 
the  further  explanation  of  his  project  in  order  to  avoid 
misconstruction  of  what  he  had  in  mind.  He  enumerates 
several  features  where  he  felt  misunderstanding  was 
possible.  The  first  of  these  items  has  to  do  with  the 
charge  of  proselyting  and  of  building  up  a  new  party 
at  the  expense  of  congregations  already  in  existence. 


146 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


1.  No  Intention  of  Proselyting.  To  one  whose  dispo¬ 
sition  was  so  pre-eminently  irenic  as  was  that  of  Thomas 
Campbell,  the  charge  of  deliberately  proselyting  or 
working  to  tear  down  existing  church  organizations  was 
peculiarly  embarrassing.  The  first  paragraph  in  the 
Appendix  deals  with  this  accusation  and  denies  it  in 
the  strongest  possible  terms.  “ First,  then,”  he  says, 
“we  beg  to  leave  to  assure  our  brethren  that  we  have 
no  intention  to  interfere,  either  directly  or  indirectly, 
with  the  peace  and  order  of  the  settled  Churches,  by 
directing  any  ministerial  assistance  with  which  the  Lord 
may  please  to  favor  us  to  make  inroads  upon  such ;  or  by 
endeavoring  to  erect  Churches  out  of  Churches,  to  dis¬ 
tract  and  divide  congregations.”  He  goes  on  further 
to  say  that  he  “esteems  all  who  preach  a  free  uncon¬ 
ditional  salvation  through  the  blood  of  Jesus  to  perish¬ 
ing  sinners  of  every  description,  and  who  manifestly 
connect  with  this  a  life  of  holiness  and  pastoral  diligence 
in  the  performance  of  all  the  duties  of  their  sacred 
office,  according  to  the  Scriptures”  as  true  ministers  of 
the  Church  of  Christ,  “by  whatever  name  they  are 
called.” 

Alexander  Campbell,  in  the  only  footnote  which  he  has 
added  to  the  Appendix,  files  an  exception  to  the  word 
“unconditional.”  He  savs,  “there  is  neither  conditional 
nor  unconditional  salvation  so  designated  in  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture.  As  respects  procurement,  there  is  no  condition.  It 
is  of  grace.  But,  like  life  and  health,  there  are  conditions 
of  enjoyment.  We  could  not  procure  merit  or  purchase 
it  at  any  price.  But  when  justified  by  faith,  and  not  by 
works,  sanctified  by  the  spirit,  or  separated  from  the 
world  we  are  commanded  to  give  ‘all  diligence  to  make 
our  calling  and  election  sure.’  ” 

The  interesting  thing  about  the  younger  Campbell’s 
comment  is  his  assertion  of  theoretical  belief  in  the  the¬ 
ology  of  Luther  while  at  the  same  time  introducing  the 
doctrine  of  works,  as  it  were,  by  the  back  door.  In  the 
stress  which  the  Campbells’  Scott  and  Stone  later  came 


The  Appendix 


147 


to  place  upon  baptism  as  a  means  of  salvation,  this 
secession  from  the  Lutheran  dogma  is  clearly  apparent. 
The  fact  is  that  the  Campbells,  perhaps  unconsciously, 
combined  Protestant  and  Catholic  theology  to  a  degree 
not  apparent  in  any  other  religious  program.  Along 
with  this  there  is  also  more  than  a  touch  of  Socinianism 
so  that  in  many  respects  their  plea  is  the  most  eclectic  in 
Christendom. 

2.  Attitude  Toward  Creeds  and  Confessions.  Another 
criticism  which  Thomas  Campbell  wished  to  guard 
against  in  the  Appendix  was  the  charge  of  attacking 
creeds  and  confessions  of  faith.  At  the  time  when  the 
Declaration  was  written,  creeds  were  regarded  as  ab¬ 
solutely  essential  to  the  very  existence  of  the  Church. 
The  present  day  aversion  to  theological  standards  is  a 
plant  of  comparatively  late  development.  More  than 
three  decades  after  the  appearance  of  the  Declaration 
and  Address,  Alexander  Campbell  in  his  debate  with 
Rice  threw  down  the  gauntlet  and  attacked  all  human 
creeds  and  confessions  with  the  utmost  disregard  of 
consequences.  No  plank  in  his  platform  proved  in  the 
long  run  more  appealing  or  unanswerable  than  his 
ereedal  anathema.  It  is  questionable,  however,  whether 
Alexander  himself  would  have  taken  this  position  in 
1809.  It  required  many  years  of  experience  and  de¬ 
velopment  to  enable  him  to  utter  his  final  word  upon 
the  subject.  Furthermore,  it  must  always  be  remem¬ 
bered  that  Alexander  was  far  less  cautious  and  con¬ 
ciliatory  in  his  temper  than  was  his  more  mildly  tem¬ 
pered  father. 

In  any  event,  Thomas  Campbell  hastens  in  the  earlier 
sections  of  the  Appendix  to  disclaim  any  desire  to  over¬ 
throw  creeds  ancl  dogmas  as  such.  He  says,  “it  is  the 
abuse  and  not  the  lawful  use  of  such  compilations  that 
we  oppose.”  It  is  only  when  creeds  oppose  the  unity  of 
the  church  and  when  they  “oppress  the  weak  of  God’s 
heritage”  that  he  objects  to  them.  The  whole  tenor  of 


148 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


this  portion  of  the  Appendix,  as  is  more  or  less  true 
of  the  document  throughout,  is  intended  to  assert  the 
essential  evangelicalism  of  its  author.  Socinianism, 
which  was  just  at  this  time  flowering  into  the  unitarian- 
ism  of  Channing  and  his  successors,  was  in  bad  repute 
with  the  orthodox  Christian  communities  and  Thomas 
Campbell  did  not  wish  to  be  grouped  with  the  New 
England  radicals.  In  fact,  the  major  part  of  the  Ap¬ 
pendix  is  taken  up  with  a  denial  of  latitudinarianism  as 
properly  applying  to  the  new  movement.  The  Campbells 
were  both  thoroughly  orthodox  Presbyterians  of  the  more 
liberal  schools  and  were  always  averse  to  Unitarianism  in 
any  form.  No  theologians  have  stressed  the  doctrine 
of  the  divinity  of  Christ  to  a  greater  degree  than  was 
true  of  the  early  fathers  of  the  Restoration  movement. 
Even  down  to  the  present  day,  the  most  radical  adher¬ 
ents  of  the  Disciples  of  Christ  resent  any  imputation  of 
Unitarianism.  The  traditional  antipathy  to  the  Socinian 
theology  still  remains.  It  is  rather  striking  in  this  con¬ 
nection  to  remember  that  there  is,,  in  reality,  more 
Socinianism  in  the  platform  of  the  Campbells  than  there 
is  Catholicism  or  Lutheranism. 

3.  Breadili  of  Thomas  Campbell’s  Position.  The  irenic 
temper  of  the  Declaration  and  Address  is  well  main¬ 
tained  throughout  the  Appendix.  Again  and  again,  the 
author  asserts  that  the  program  for  unity  which  he  sug¬ 
gests  is  only  tentative  and  is  to  be  subjected  to  the  most 
rigid  criticism.  He  says,  “We  have  only  proposed  what 
appeared  to  us  most  likely  to  promote  the  desired  event, 
humbly  submitting  the  whole  premises  to  their  (our 
brethren)  candid  and  impartial  investigation,  to  be  al¬ 
tered,  corrected,  and  amended,  as  they  see  cause  or  to 
adopt  any  other  plan  that  may  appear  more  just  and 
unexceptionable.”  There  is  nothing  dogmatic  or  ego¬ 
tistical  in  such  a  proposition.  Thomas  Campbell  desires 
Christian  unity  and  is  sure  that  if  honest  Christians  of 
all  parties  will  approach  the  subject  in  the  right  way, 
some  means  for  securing  union  will  be  discovered. 
Whatever  these  means  may  be,  the  author  of  the  Dec- 


The  Appendix 


149 


laration  and  Address  is  willing  to  accept  them.  He 
offers  his  own  suggestion  as  a  contribution  to  the  prob¬ 
lem.  Beyond  this,  he  does  not  claim  to  go. 

While  the  above  statement  undoubtedly  represents  the 
general  temper  of  the  Declaration,  it  is  only  fair 
to  refusing  a  place  to  them  in  heaven,  “unless  we  should 
partial  reading  of  the  Appendix  that  the  author  had 
every  confidence  in  his  own  platform.  He  says,  for 
example,  “If  the  first  Christian  churches  walking  in  the 
fear  of  the  Lord  in  holy  unity  and  unanimity,  enjoyed 
the  comforts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  were  increased 
and  edified,  we  have  reason  to  belieATe  that  walking  in 
their  footsteps  will  everywhere  and  at  all  times  insure 
the  same  blessed  privileges.  And  it  is  in  an  exact  con¬ 
formity  to  their  recorded  and  approved  example,  that 
we,  through  grace,  would  be  desirous  to  promote  the 
erection  of  churches.”  Thomas  Campbell  doubtless 
stressed  the  Restoration  idea  less  than  Alexander,  but 
there  is  abundant  evidence  that  it  occupied  a  place  of 
foremost  importance  in  his  thinking.  The  reason  why 
he  is  willing  to  stake  his  case  upon  the  unbiased  decision 
of  his  brethren,  is  because  he  is  supremely  confident 
that  such  judgment  will  be  in  favor  of  his  position. 
Any  other  decision  was,  indeed,  to  him  an  unthinkable 
proposition.  For  the  Church  to  get  back  to  the  New 
Testament  ideal  meant  union  to  him  and  he  could  not 
think  of  union  in  any  other  terms. 

It  is  true  that  his  idea  of  unity  was  exceedingly  broad 
at  all  times.  He  observes  that  the  Hebrew  Christians 
abstained  from  certain  meats,  observed  certain  days 
and  did  various  other  things  which  were  not  demanded 
of  the  Gentile  converts,  all  without  destroying  the  unity 
of  the  church.  For  this  reason,  he  stands  up  stoutly 
for  freedom  of  private  opinion  and  for  the  utmost  cath¬ 
olicity  in  religious  practice. 

4.  The  Sin  of  Church  Arrogance.  The  Appendix  is 
very  vigorous  in  its  denunciation  of  church  intolerance 
and  arrogance.  Thomas  Campbell  had  felt  the  weight 
of  persecution  in  his  own  person  and  therefore  wrote 


150 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


out  of  direct  and  immediate  experience.  To  refuse 
fellowship  to  Christians  on  earth,  he  says,  is  tantamount 
to  refusing  a  place  to  them  in  heaven,  “unless  we  should 
suppose  that  those  whom  Christ  by  his  word  rejects 
here,  he  will  nevertheless  receive  hereafter.”  One  can¬ 
not  help  feeling  that  the  author  has  the  presbytery  of 
Chartiers  in  mind  when  he  writes  the  following  vigorous 
impeachment  of  intolerance:  ‘‘Is  it  anything  or  is  it 
nothing  for  a  person  to  stand  rejected  by  the  Church 
of  God.  ‘What  ye  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in 
heaven’  is  the  awful  sanction  of  the  Church’s  judgment 
in  justly  rejecting  any  person.  Take  away  this,  and 
it  has  no  sanction  at  all.  But  the  Church  rejecting, 
always  pretends  to  have  acted  justly  in  so  doing,  and 
if  so  whereabouts  does  it  confessedly  leave  the  person 
rejected,  if  not  in  a  state  of  damnation?  That  is  to  say, 
if  it  acknowledged  itself  to  be  a  Church  of  Christ  and 
to  have  acted  justly.” 

The  criticism  contained  in  the  above  paragraph  cuts 
perhaps  deeper  than  Thomas  Campbell  imagined.  Pushed 
to  its  logical  conclusion,  it  would  lead  to  a  complete  in¬ 
terchange  of  members  between  Roman  Catholic,  Greek 
orthodox,  and  all  forms  of  Protestant  communion.  We 
question  whether  Mr.  Campbell  himself  would  have  gone 
so  far  at  this  time.  He  extends  the  argument,  however, 
in  rather  relentless  fashion  to  its  full  logical  conclusion 
as  far  as  the  local  Protestantism  of  his  own  land  is  con¬ 
cerned.  He  is  obviously  thinking  of  western  Pennsyl¬ 
vania  and  especially  of  the  Presbytery  of  Chartiers 
when  he  writes:  “If,  after  all,  any  particular  church 
acting  thus  should  refuse  the  foregoing  conclusion,  by 
saying:  we  meant  no  such  thing  concerning  the  person 
objected;  we  only  judged  him  unworthy  of  a  place 
among  ns,  and  therefore  put  him  away,  but  there  are 
other  churches  that  mav  receive  him:  we  would  be  al- 

1/ 

most  tempted  to  ask  such  a  church  if  those  other 
churches  be  Churches  of  Christ,  and  if  so,  pray  what 
does  it  account  itself?  Is  it  anything  more  or  better 
than  a  Church  of  Christ?” 


The  Appendix 


151 


The  conclusion  drawn  from  the  above  argument  is 
that  excluding  any  Christian  from  church  fellowship 
is  unjustifiable  for  the  reason  that  if  another  church 
receives  such  an  one,  it  has  no  more  authority  for  doing 
so  than  would  have  been  true  in  the  case  of  the  former 
church.  This  being  the  situation,  by  receiving  the  one 
rejected  the  second  church  lays  itself  open  to  the  criti¬ 
cism  of  the  first  one  and  thereby  produces  a  schism  be¬ 
tween  the  churches.  Mr.  Campbell  pursues  this  vein 
still  further  when  he  uses  the  following  language:  “That 
church,  therefore,  must  surely  act  very  schismatically, 
very  unlike  a  Church  of  Christ  which  necessarily  pre¬ 
supposes  or  produces  schism  in  order  to  shield  an  op¬ 
pressed  fellow-Christian  from  the  dreadful  consequences 
of  its  unrighteous  proceedings.  And  is  this  not  confess¬ 
edly  the  case  with  every  church  which  rejects  a  person 
from  its  communion  while  it  acknowledges  him  to  be 
a  fellow-Christian ;  and  in  order  to  excuse  this  piece 
of  cruelty,  says  he  may  find  refuge  some  place  else,  some 
other  church  may  receive  him?  For.  as  we  have  alreadv 
observed,  if  no  schism  did  already  exist  one  church 
receiving  those  whom  another  has  rejected  must  cer- 
tainlv  make  one.” 

These  passages  in  the  Appendix  constitute  the  chief 
basis  for  the  assertion  that  Thomas  Campbell  favored 
the  practice  of  open  membership  in  opposition  to  the 
more  restricted  use  of  Alexander.  As  we  have  already 
observed,  if  taken  by  themselves  and  pursued  to  their 
full  logical  conclusion,  tliev  would  undoubtedly  involve 
the  idea  of  a  universal  exchange  of  members  on  the  part 
of  all  churches  claiming  in  any  sense  to  be  Christian. 
It  is  hardly  fair  to  Mr.  Campbell,  however,  to  detach 
these  passages  from  his  main  argument.  As  the  writer 
sees  the  situation,  the  author  of  the  Declaration  and 
Address  had  not  fully  worked  out  his  own  program 
when  he  wrote  the  above  passages.  Only  a  few  pages 
further  on,  he  affirms  distinctlv  the  necessity  for  a  re- 
turn  to  the  New  Testament  standard  and  practice  in 
order  to  solve  the  problem  of  disunion.  He  nowhere 


152 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


infers  that  lie  expects  union  upon  any  other  terms.  To 
quote  his  own  language  on  the  next  page,  “By  simply 
returning  to  the  original  standard  of  Christianity,  the 
profession  and  practice  of  the  primitive  Church  as  ex¬ 
pressly  exhibited  upon  the  sacred  page  of  the  New 
Testament  scriptures,  is  the  only  possible  way  that  we 
can  perceive  to  get  rid  of  those  evils  (sectarian 
schisms).”  A  little  further  on  he  refers  to  the  New 
Testament  as  “a  perfect  model,  a  sufficient  formula  for 
the  worship,  discipline  and  government  of  the  Christian 
Church.”  And  still  further  he  adds,  “and  how  we  be¬ 
seech  you  shall  this  gross  and  prevalent  corruption  be 
purged  out  of  the  visible  professing  Church  but  by 
radical  reform,  but  by  returning  to  the  original  sim¬ 
plicity,  the  primitive  purity  of  the  Christian  institution, 
and,  of  course,  taking  up  things  just  as  we  found  them 
upon  the  sacred  page.” 

Are  we  to  understand  from  the  above  passages  that 
the  Declaration  and  Address  proposed  Christian  union 
with  or  without  the  restoration  of  the  New  Testament 
Church,  or  that  it  intended  to  suggest  restoration  as  the 
only  pathway  to  union?  Whatever  may  have  been  the 
original  meaning  of  the  document,  beyond  any  question, 
its  author  and  its  followers  came  finally  to  adhere  to 
the  second  position.  In  all  fairness,  we  think  it  rather 
questionable  to  assert  that  this  decision  was  clearly  in 
the  mind  of  Thomas  Campbell  in  1809.  There  was  some 
development  in  his  religious  thinking  and  practice  after 
that  date.  This  development  led  to  clearer  and  more 
precise  definition  of  his  fundamental  message,  and  yet 
it  is  at  least  highly  questionable  whether  the  Declaration 
itself  is  in  any  sense  an  open  membership  document.  It 
can  only  be  made  so  by  quoting  passages  out  of  their 
context  and  by  stressing  one  side  alone  of  Thomas  Camp¬ 
bell’s  teaching. 

5.  How  to  Interpret  the  Scriptures.  The  author  of  the 
Appendix  gives  due  consideration  to  the  charge  later 
made  by  Mr.  Rice  in  his  debate  with  Alexander  Campbell 
that  a  return  to  the  New  Testament  means  nothing  with- 


The  Appendix 


153 


out  a  definite  standard  of  interpretation  of  the  text.  In 
reply  to  this  objection,,  Mr.  Campbell  asserts  that  there 
are  no  serious  differences  with  regard  to  fundamentals 
of  the  Scripture  on  the  part  of  right  thinking  and 
morally  upright  Christians  of  all  groups  or  classes.  It 
is  the  appeal  made  earlier  to  the  arbitrament  of  the 
common  mind.  It  is  true  that  there  is  some  hesitancy 
manifest  in  the  language  of  the  author  at  this  point. 
Nevertheless,  he  clings  to  the  standard  of  right  reason 
and  the  enlightened  consensus  of  opinion  of  right  minded 
Christians.  This  is  one  point  upon  which  the  philosophy 
of  the  Campbells  never  varied. 

Much  latitude  for  freedom  of  opinion  is  afforded  in 
Thomas  Campbell’s  program.  There  is  nothing,  he 
thinks,  in  the  Scripture  or  the  nature  of  things  “that 
should  induce  us  to  expect  an  entire  unity  of  sentiment 
in  the  present  imperfect  state.”  The  best  we  can  hope 
for  is  that  “the  church  may  come  to  such  a  Scriptural 
unity  of  faith  and  practice,  that  there  will  be  no  schism 
in  the  body,  no  self-preferring  sect  of  professed  and 
acknowledged  Christians  rejecting  and  excluding  their 
brother.” 

The  unity  above  indicated,  while  not  perfect,  would 
be  better,  the  author  thinks,  than  anything  which  may 
be  expected  from  other  sources.  The  creedal  method 
has  been  tried,  he  says,  and  has  always  produced  schism 
instead  of  union.  There  is  no  hope  therefore  in  pro- 
ceding  further  upon  such  a  basis.  We  can  certainly 
throw  the  creeds  overboard  without  making  our  situa¬ 
tion  any  worse.  Mr.  Campbell  deals  very  gently  with 
these  documents,  much  more  gently  than  was  true  of 
Alexander’s  later  treatment.  At  this  point  too  there 
was  an  evolution  in  the  thinking  of  the  Restoration 
fathers.  As  they  grew  more  and  more  to  emphasize  the 
New  Testament  program,  it  naturally  drew  them  farther 
away  from  the  creedal  pronouncements  of  later  ages. 

In  answer  to  the  further  charge  that  Unitarians,  or 
as  they  are  called  in  the  text,  Arians  and  Socinians, 
could  get  into  the  church  on  the  basis  of  receiving  the 


154 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


Bible  as  the  word  of  God,  the  author  replies  that  an 
Arian  who  can  subscribe  to  the  New  Testament  could 
also  subscribe  to  any  creed  in  Christendom.  He  does 
not  think  that  Athanasius  improved  upon  the  apostles 
or  their  Master.  If  the  apostolic  creed  will  not  keep  out 
heretics,  no  other  formulation  will  be  effective. 

It  is  a  cheap  and  easy  orthodoxy,  Thomas  Campbell 
says,  to  commit  a  catechism  to  memory,  or  to  profess 
approbation  of  a  formula  which  we  have  scarcely  read, 
much  less  understood,  in  order  to  secure  unanimity  of 
view.  This  is  the  kind  of  unity  which  prevails  in  most 
creedal  or  ecclesiastical  organizations.  The  members  of 
such  churches  agree  in  their  thinking  for  the  simple  rea¬ 
son  that  they  have  agreed  not  to  think.  Where  people 
have  no  opinions  at  all,  it  may  be  said  that  their  opin¬ 
ions  coincide.  As  the  author  puts  it  “a  person  may  by  this 
short  and  easy  method  become  as  orthodox  as  the  apostle 
Paul  (if  such  superficial  professions,  such  mere  hearsay 
verbal  repetitions  can  be  called  orthodoxy)  without  ever 
once  consulting  the  Bible,  or  so  much  as  putting  up  a 
single  petition  for  the  Holy  Spirit  to  guide  him  into  all 
truth,  to  open  his  understanding  to  know  the  Scriptures ; 
for,  his  form  of  sound  words  truly  believed,  if  it  hap¬ 
pened  to  be  right,  must,  without  more  ado,  infallibly 
secure  his  orthodoxy.”  It  is  of  course  needless  to  say 
that  the  Campbells  always  stood  for  independent  think¬ 
ing  and  unity  based  upon  ignorance  could  only  attract 
their  scorn.  Thinking  people  will  not  be  bound  by  the 
creeds  and  will,  to  a  certain  extent,  disagree  in  their 
views  of  the  Scriptures.  Nevertheless,  Thomas  Campbell 
did  not  doubt  the  divine  character  of  the  latter,  inter¬ 
preted  by  reason  which  is  also  the  gift  of  God,  would 
lead  to  unified  thinking  in  all  essential  particulars. 

6.  Superiority  of  the  Bible  as  a  Standard.  In  answer 
to  the  criticism  that  a  return  “to  the  express  letter  of 
the  Divine  word”  would  have  a  legalistic  and  narrowing 
influence,  the  author  urges  that  such  an  objection  applies 
less  to  the  Scriptures  than  to  creedal  formulations.  Min¬ 
isters  and  laymen  alike,  he  says,  will  have  greater  free- 


The  Appendix 


155 


dom  in  interpreting’  the  scriptures  than  they  have  in  inter¬ 
preting  their  own  creeds,  the  latter  narrowing  the  text 
instead  of  broadening  it.  Church  standards  wTere 
erected  later  than  the  Bible  and  the  Bible  standard 
functioned  satisfactorily  before  they  existed.  As  the 
Declaration  puts  it,  “the  church  at  Ephesus  long  before 
we  have  any  account  of  the  existence  of  such  a  standard, 
is  not  only  mentioned,  with  many  others  as  in  a  state 
of  existence,  and  of  high  attainments  too,  but  is  also 
commended  for  vigilance  and  fidelity  in  detecting  and 
rejecting  false  apostles.” 

The  author  then  comes  back  to  his  fundamental  thesis 
that  truth  must  be  one  and  that  the  word  of  God  is 
the  only  infallible  expression  of  truth.  “Union  in 
truth,”  he  says,  “among  all  the  manifest  subjects  of 
grace  and  truth  is  what  we  advocate.  We  carry  our 
views  of  union  no  farther  than  this,  nor  do  we  presume 
to  recommend  it  upon  any  other  principle  than  truth 
alone.  Now,  surely,  truth  is  something  certain  and 
definite;  if  not,  who  will  take  upon  him  to  define  and 
determine  it?  This  we  suppose  God  has  sufficiently  done 
already  in  ITis  Holy  Word.” 

Thomas  Campbell,  like  Alexander,  was  an  Aristotelian 
in  his  thinking.  He  believed  thoroughly  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  golden  mean  and  the  philosophy  of  Meliorism.  He 
was  a  “middle-of-the-roader”  in  the  full  sense  of  the 
term.  To  cpiote  his  own  language,  “extremes  we  are  told 
are  dangerous.  We  therefore  suppose  a  middle  way,  a  safe 
way,  so  plainly  marked  out  by  unerring  wisdom,  that  if 
duly  attended  to  under  the  Divine  direction,  the  way¬ 
faring  men,  though  fools,  need  not  err  therein,  and  of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  God.”  He  continues  further  in 
his  assertion  of  this  via  media  by  explaining  the  method 
through  which  all  men  may  arrive  at  a  knoAvledge  of 
what  the  correct  pathway  is.  He  says:  “It  must  be  a 
way  very  far  remote  from  logical  subtleties  and  meta¬ 
physical  speculations,  and  as  such  we  have  taken  it  up, 
upon  the  plainest  and  most  obvious  principles  of  divine 
revelation  and  common  sense — the  common  sense,  we 


156 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


mean,  of  Christians,  exercised  upon  the  plainest  and 
most  obvious  truths  and  facts  divinely  recorded  for  their 
instruction.  ’  ’ 

In  the  above  passage,  the  authority  of  the  common 
reason,  as  the  only  safe  interpreter  of  scripture,  is 
clearly  emphasized.  No  doubt  both  of  the  Campbells 
derived  this  doctrine  of  the  universal  reason  from  what 
was  known  as  the  Common  Sense  metaphysics  of  Reid 
and  the  Scottish  school  of  philosophy  in  general.  Reid 
was  held  in  the  highest  repute  at  Edinburgh  during  the 
time  when  Alexander  Campbell  was  a  student  in  Scot¬ 
land,  and  the  philosophy  which  the  young  man  imbibed 
must  have  been  chiefly  of  the  ‘‘Common  Sense” 

t/ 

variety.  Apparently  the  rationalism  of  Leibnitz  and 
the  critical  idealism  of  Kant  and  his  later  followers 
were  entirely  unknown  to  the  author  of  the  Declaration 
and  Address.  The  Campbells,  as  Dr.  W.  E.  Garrison 
has  clearly  shown,  drew  their  psychology  from  Locke 
almost  exclusively.  It  seems  equally  certain,  however, 
that  their  philosophy  was  derived  from  the  teaching  of 
Reid  and  the  school  of  which  he  was  the  most  dis¬ 
tinguished  representative. 

Thomas  Campbell  asserts,  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
Appendix,  his  thorough  confidence  in  the  adequacy  of 
the  Bible  as  a  standard  of  truth.  More  than  the  sacred 
text  is  not  needed  to  convict  sinners  or  to  furnish  them 
with  the  way  of  salvation.  Men  and  women  converted 
by  simple  obedience  to  the  scriptural  teaching  and  who 
manifest  in  their  character  and  life  the  true  Christian 
ideal  of  conduct,  he  thinks  should  be  styled  Christians 
by  universal  consent.  Nothing  more  than  this  is  needed 
to  constitute  membership  in  the  body  of  the  faithful 
and  nothing  more  should  be  required.  Whether  such 
people  are  Arminians  or  Calvinists,  he  says,  makes  but 
little  difference.  The  important  thing  is  whether  they 
are  Christians.  Moreover,  they  are  Christians  if  they 
love  Christ  and  obey  him  as  far  they  know  his  will.  All 
such  followers  of  Christ  should  be  acknowledged  as 
members  of  the  church  and  should  be  given  its  full  and 
cordial  fellowship.  To  quote  his  own  words  again, 


The  Appendix 


157 


“Among  such,  however  situated,  whether  in  the  same  or 
similar  associations,  there  ought  to  be  no  schisms,  no 
uncharitable  divisions  but  they  ought  all  mutually  to 
receive  and  acknowledge  each  other  as  brethren.  ” 

In  his  discussion  of  the  relation  between  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  the  author  of  the  Declaration  and  Ad¬ 
dress  clearly  shows  the  influence  of  the  covenant  the¬ 
ology  of  Coccejus,  the  great  Dutch  teacher  and  theolo¬ 
gian.  Alexander  Campbell,  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Law 
delivered  seven  vears  later,  elaborated  the  covenant  idea 
in  much  greater  detail.  There  can  be  little  question  but 
that  the  doctrine  of  progressive  development  along  with 
the  idea  of  the  unscripturalness  of  the  Sabbath  and  a  cer¬ 
tain  distinct  bias  toward  Christian  union,  all  came  to  the 
Campbells  largely  through  the  influence  of  Coccejus. 
The  fact  is  that  both  men  derived  their  theology  from 
the  Leyden  professor  almost  to  the  same  degree  that 
they  drew  their  psychology  from  Locke  and  their  meta¬ 
physics  from  Reid. 

7.  Final  Conclusions.  The  Appendix  concludes  with 
an  appeal  to  Christian  charity  which  is  especially  sig¬ 
nificant  in  view  of  the  partisan  feelings  which  prevailed 
at  the  time.  The  author  especially  disclaims  any  desire 
to  engage  in  controversv  or  to  do  anything  which  would 
further  accentuate  the  bitterness  already  too  prevalent 
in  Christian  circles.  “Religious  controversy  among 
professors,”  he  says,  is  “the  most  unhappy  of  all  prac¬ 
tices  sanctioned  by  the  plausible  pretense  of  zeal  for 
the  truth.  We  would,  therefore,  humbly  advise  our 
friends  to  concur  with  us  in  our  professed  and  sincere 
intention  to  avoid  this  evil  practice.  Let  it  suffice  to 
put  into  the  hands  of  such  as  desire  information  what 
we  hereby  publish  for  that  purpose.  If  this,  however, 
should  not  satisfy,  let  them  give  in  their  objections  in 
writing;  we  shall  thankfully  receive,  and  seriously  con¬ 
sider,  with  all  due  attention,  whatever  comes  before  us 
in  this  way ;  but  verbal  controversy  we  absolutely 
refuse.” 

The  concluding  sentence  of  the  above  quotation  pos¬ 
sesses  no  little  touch  of  humor  when  one  takes  into 


158 


The  Christian  Union  Overture 


account  the  later  history  of  Alexander  Campbell.  As 
one  of  the  foremost,  if  not  the  foremost,  religious  de¬ 
baters  of  modern  times,  it  can  hardly  be  said  that  the 
younger  Campbell  adhered  to  his  father’s  maxim  “ ab¬ 
solutely  to  refuse  verbal  controversy.”  It  is  only  fair, 
however,  to  say  that  Thomas  Campbell  himself  never 
debated  his  views  upon  the  public  platform  and  that 
Alexander  was  led  to  adopt  the  controversial  method 
largely  under  the  stress  of  circumstances.  At  the  time 
the  Declaration  and  Address  was  written,  he  would  prob¬ 
ably  have  agreed  with  his  father  concerning  the  wisdom 
of  avoiding  public  discussion. 

In  the  final  illustration  with  which  the  Appendix 
closes,  Thomas  Campbell  strikes  the  highest  ground. 
The  test  of  Christianity  is  Christian  character  and  serv¬ 
ice.  The  whole  point  to  the  story  is  found  in  its  em¬ 
phasis  upon  vital  Christianity.  In  view  of  the  tendency 
of  the  later  followers  of  the  Campbells  to  stress  the 
formal  element  in  religion,  it  is  unfortunate  that  the 
concluding  pages  of  the  Declaration  and  Address  have 
not  been  better  known  among  them.  The  truth  of  the 
matter  is  that  the  Campbells’  conception  of  Christianity, 
and  this  was  especially  true  of  the  elder  of  the  two  men, 
was  ethical  through  and  through.  If  later  controversies 
temporarily  led  to  an  apparent  under-stressing  of  this 
fundamental  feature  in  their  plea,  that  fact  does  not 
invalidate  the  essential  character  of  the  plea  itself. 
Thomas  Campbell  desires  to  restore  the  original  church. 
The  restoration  he  has  in  mind  is  far  more  a  matter 
of  life  than  of  form.  As  he  says  in  almost  the  final 
words  of  his  immortal  document,  “What  we  need  is  to 
exhibit  the  unity  and  charity  of  the  primitive  churches 
as  well  as  their  humble,  honest,  and  affectionate  deport¬ 
ment  toward  each  other  and  toward  all  men.  The  con¬ 
version  of  the  world,”  he  continues,  “awaits  our  return 
to  primitive  unity  and  love.”  There  is  no  finer  ideal  in 
religious  literature  than  that  which  is  embodied  in  the 
concluding  words  of  Thomas  Campbell’s  Christian  union 
overture. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Libraries 


012  01 


368  8686 


